Dark man

Elizabeth, NJ

#309 Nov 22, 2012
Bigsmoke wrote:
My mistake.
Atlantic Slave Trade 1490 - 1888
European colonization of Africa 1884 - 1920
Central-West Africans had 394 fcuking years of importing guns from Europe in return for slaves to figure out how to make one themselves. But that wouldn't of saved them, they would of also needed to industrialize something most to date have still failed to do.
Clearly Africa has a been plagued by generations of idiots leading the masses. Idiots more concerned about their belly than the greater people.
The slave trade didnt start in 1490 culumbus didnt even get to america until 1492. The slave trade was years after his voyages. I forget how long tho.
Bigsmoke

Kingston Upon Thames, UK

#310 Nov 22, 2012
Bakari Neferu wrote:
<quoted text>
I just showed you an example. Now refute it, or admit to being autistic.
You didn't show me anything.
Bakari Neferu wrote:
<quoted text>
Ghana. Now refute it, or admit to being autistic.
''Ghana''? You really think typing ''Ghana'' is evidence for your BS claims? So you want me to refute the word ''Ghana'' or will your provide a credible source showing us their attempts to industrialize.
Bakari Neferu wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I agree with the military and dictatorship rulers being dumb and incompetent.
What source have you read that says that British tried to industrialize countries like Ghana?
I didn't say Ghana though.

Well the ''Cape to Cairo Railway'' which would of connected; Egypt, North Sudan, South Sudan, Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Botswana & South Africa by rail was planned and partially constructed under British authority. The infrastructure of many cities which were once under British authority was being built towards a society which would be industrialized.
Bakari Neferu wrote:
<quoted text>
You're autistic. It is not unusual for autistic people to laugh for no apparent reason.
''Autistic''? Is that the best you have?
Dark man

Elizabeth, NJ

#311 Nov 22, 2012
Alot of african countries are industrializing. I mean some countries just very recently got they independence.
Bigsmoke

Kingston Upon Thames, UK

#312 Nov 22, 2012
Bakari Neferu wrote:
<quoted text>
Most of the indigenous-made weaponry was sufficient to ward off Slave raiders for those prepared to ward them off.
Indigenous manufacturing of arms did not take place until around the nineteenth century when European trade of arms was cut off, but the domestic brands, as I've said, were of poor quality and little effect against European technology.
Exactly what were Africans supposed to industrialize with?
<quoted text>
Yes, I agree with this part.
Why didn't they seek to produce them from their introduction to them in the 15th century? Why become dependent on foreigners for your most powerful weapons? Clearly one with common sense can see that is not a good idea.

Central-West Africans were not some stone age people, like Europeans they were using iron technology. So with the damn iron they've been producing for thousands of years they could industrialize with. Steam engines, railroads, locomotives, guns etc they're made from iron and wood mainly. In advanced ''steel'' is just another form of Iron to me by the way there was no ''steel age''.

''European technology''? Are you now going to claim only Europeans can learn it or something? What was stopping them from achieving the same technology other than the stupid leaders who thought it was a better idea to wage wars in order to sell captives for manufactured goods?
Dark man

Elizabeth, NJ

#313 Nov 22, 2012
Bigsmoke wrote:
My mistake.
Atlantic Slave Trade 1490 - 1888
European colonization of Africa 1884 - 1920
Central-West Africans had 394 fcuking years of importing guns from Europe in return for slaves to figure out how to make one themselves. But that wouldn't of saved them, they would of also needed to industrialize something most to date have still failed to do.
Clearly Africa has a been plagued by generations of idiots leading the masses. Idiots more concerned about their belly than the greater people.
What happen was European and arab slave trade weaken there numbers as western euro were benefiting from colonies. Not to mention the heat and diseases brought on by mosquitoes. All of factors contributed.
Bigsmoke

Kingston Upon Thames, UK

#314 Nov 22, 2012
Dark man wrote:
<quoted text>
They were also weakened by arabs with the tran Saharan slave.
They were not weakened by Arabs. Those were mostly Muslim black Africans transporting captives through the Sahara and during that time it was Ottoman rule in the middle east.
Bigsmoke

Kingston Upon Thames, UK

#315 Nov 22, 2012
Dark man wrote:
<quoted text>
The slave trade didnt start in 1490 culumbus didnt even get to america until 1492. The slave trade was years after his voyages. I forget how long tho.
Europeans (Portuguese) opened up trade with Central-West Africa (Kingdom of Kongo) in 1488, they started taking captives soon after directly back to Europe.

Portugal's capital had a significant black population because of this.

Many of those European voyages to the Americas including Columbus' second voyage included descendants of these black Africans who were now Portuguese or Spanish by nationality & culture.

This is how they figured out black were more likely to survive in the Americas, the first black people in the Americas were not slaves but conquistadors, colonizers and even slave owners working for the Portuguese or Spanish crowns like their white counterparts.
Bigsmoke

Kingston Upon Thames, UK

#316 Nov 22, 2012
My mistake. The black Africans in Columbus' second voyage to the Americas would of been African born, I mean the later ones.
Dark man

Elizabeth, NJ

#317 Nov 22, 2012
Bigsmoke wrote:
<quoted text>
They were not weakened by Arabs. Those were mostly Muslim black Africans transporting captives through the Sahara and during that time it was Ottoman rule in the middle east.
Yeah thats true.
Bigsmoke

Kingston Upon Thames, UK

#318 Nov 22, 2012
Dark man wrote:
<quoted text>
What happen was European and arab slave trade weaken there numbers as western euro were benefiting from colonies. Not to mention the heat and diseases brought on by mosquitoes. All of factors contributed.
They were not weakened by the slave trades.

One machine gunner could kill 100 people in minutes, the maxim machine gun was invented in the UK 1884 the same year the scramble for Africa really began.

Also the fact that these European powers were now industrialized means they could mass produce these machine guns, normal guns, bullets, armor, cannons etc and use fast ship.

Africans had no chance.
-AAA-

Houston, TX

#319 Nov 22, 2012
Dark man wrote:
Alot of african countries are industrializing. I mean some countries just very recently got they independence.
Thats good.
Dark man

Elizabeth, NJ

#320 Nov 22, 2012
Bigsmoke wrote:
<quoted text>
Europeans (Portuguese) opened up trade with Central-West Africa (Kingdom of Kongo) in 1488, they started taking captives soon after directly back to Europe.
Portugal's capital had a significant black population because of this.
Many of those European voyages to the Americas including Columbus' second voyage included descendants of these black Africans who were now Portuguese or Spanish by nationality & culture.
This is how they figured out black were more likely to survive in the Americas, the first black people in the Americas were not slaves but conquistadors, colonizers and even slave owners working for the Portuguese or Spanish crowns like their white counterparts.
Yeah i wonder if some of those blacks wanted to go to europe.
Dark man

Elizabeth, NJ

#321 Nov 22, 2012
Bigsmoke wrote:
<quoted text>
They were not weakened by the slave trades.
One machine gunner could kill 100 people in minutes, the maxim machine gun was invented in the UK 1884 the same year the scramble for Africa really began.
Also the fact that these European powers were now industrialized means they could mass produce these machine guns, normal guns, bullets, armor, cannons etc and use fast ship.
Africans had no chance.
Blacks were on both sides of "scramble for africa".

“Africa”

Level 7

Since: Jan 12

Oakland

#322 Nov 22, 2012
Bigsmoke wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't show me anything.
I just showed how Beninese attempted to manufacture local arms. What are you talking about?
Bigsmoke wrote:
''Ghana''? You really think typing ''Ghana'' is evidence for your BS claims? So you want me to refute the word ''Ghana'' or will your provide a credible source showing us their attempts to industrialize.
No, I want you to go back to the other thread where I showed you that Nrumah made attempts to industrialize the country. You keep pretending that he didn't when all you have to do is type the crap into google.
Bigsmoke wrote:
I didn't say Ghana though.

Well the ''Cape to Cairo Railway'' which would of connected; Egypt, North Sudan, South Sudan, Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Botswana & South Africa by rail was planned and partially constructed under British authority. The infrastructure of many cities which were once under British authority was being built towards a society which would be industrialized.
This all to make the funneling of resources out of the continent more efficient, which is why it was abandoned as soon as Britain could no longer forcefully direct resources out of the continent.
Bigsmoke wrote:
''Autistic''? Is that the best you have?
No it isn't, I just don't feel like trying.

“Africa”

Level 7

Since: Jan 12

Oakland

#323 Nov 22, 2012
Bigsmoke wrote:
<quoted text>
Why didn't they seek to produce them from their introduction to them in the 15th century? Why become dependent on foreigners for your most powerful weapons? Clearly one with common sense can see that is not a good idea.
I think is was a simple matter of convenience. At least until the 19th century.
Bigsmoke wrote:
Central-West Africans were not some stone age people, like Europeans they were using iron technology. So with the damn iron they've been producing for thousands of years they could industrialize with. Steam engines, railroads, locomotives, guns etc they're made from iron and wood mainly. In advanced ''steel'' is just another form of Iron to me by the way there was no ''steel age''.
I''m not sure what "advanced steel" is even supposed to be.

Simply having iron isn't the point here. Practically everybody outside of the Americas had iron. Making a sword or javelin is nowhere near the same as making a rifle or a machine gun...from scratch.

For one thing: THEY ARE MACHINES.

Swords and spears are simply tools. It takes a whole new concept of engineering for one to be able to produce a machine gun than a sword or javelin. It's not just "advanced steel".

So like I said, exactly what were Africans supposed to industrialize with?
Bigsmoke wrote:
''European technology''? Are you now going to claim only Europeans can learn it or something? What was stopping them from achieving the same technology other than the stupid leaders who thought it was a better idea to wage wars in order to sell captives for manufactured goods?
Waging wars and trading captives for manufactured goods had been going on all over the place, not just in Africa, and it had been going on for centuries.

The only thing that really made this particular experience unique was the sheer demand for slaves over even gold or other natural resources.

As far as learning, where would they have learned exactly? You think those Europeans would have invited them up to Britain to teach them how to self manufacture some of the deadliest weapons on the planet?

“Try harder :)”

Level 8

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#324 Nov 22, 2012
Bigsmoke wrote:
<quoted text>
But like Africans the Chinese refused to industrialize so parts of China were colonized by Europeans.
Japan sought to industrialize right away so not only would this mean Europeans wouldn't dare try to colonize them but they became a known power after defeating the Russians.
The Chinese would eventually industrialize starting in the 1970s explaining the miracle of the Chinese economy we see today and Russia did so in the 1920s under the Soviets who who'd become a superpower.
The only country in Africa to date which has industrialized is South Africa and it is no coincidence that it also has the largest economy and strongest army in Africa.
Yet ''some'' people claim African countries should not industrialize. Crazy I know.
True.

But some African countries like Nigeria,Kenya and Rwanda are already trying to industrialize.

“Israel uses Jim Crow Terrorism”

Level 7

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#325 Nov 22, 2012
UGbeauty wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh really? Then quit complaining online and handle that shit. I do get it, you just have a bad attitude towards life.
Not true heightism of black women is the problem...

“Viking.”

Level 2

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#326 Nov 22, 2012
fair_guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Not true heightism of black women is the problem...
It is the same with every race of women.

They want the barbarian.
Bigsmoke

Kingston Upon Thames, UK

#327 Nov 22, 2012
Bakari Neferu wrote:
<quoted text>
I just showed how Beninese attempted to manufacture local arms. What are you talking about?
The key word here is ''attempted''. I do not believe it, they had hundreds of years to do it yet could only ''attempt'' to? Seriously?
Bakari Neferu wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I want you to go back to the other thread where I showed you that Nrumah made attempts to industrialize the country. You keep pretending that he didn't when all you have to do is type the crap into google.
No you didn't show me anything like how you can't show me now.
Bakari Neferu wrote:
<quoted text>
This all to make the funneling of resources out of the continent more efficient, which is why it was abandoned as soon as Britain could no longer forcefully direct resources out of the continent.
Perhaps, but it would be a step in industrializing the countries involved.
Bakari Neferu wrote:
<quoted text>
No it isn't, I just don't feel like trying.
You tried.
Bakari Neferu wrote:
<quoted text>
I think is was a simple matter of convenience. At least until the 19th century.
Really?
Bakari Neferu wrote:
<quoted text>
I''m not sure what "advanced steel" is even supposed to be.
Simply having iron isn't the point here. Practically everybody outside of the Americas had iron. Making a sword or javelin is nowhere near the same as making a rifle or a machine gun...from scratch.
For one thing: THEY ARE MACHINES.
Swords and spears are simply tools. It takes a whole new concept of engineering for one to be able to produce a machine gun than a sword or javelin. It's not just "advanced steel".
So like I said, exactly what were Africans supposed to industrialize with?
''In advanced'' not ''advanced steel''. Read that sentence again.

So are you saying Africans were to dumb to make a gun? Is that why there are munition factories in Nigeria today producing assault rifles which are more complex than muskets?

I was talking about muskets, Europeans did not trade machine guns to Central-West Africans during the Atlantic Slave Trade rather basic muskets.

As for how to industrialize, well you just do. Gain the materials and know how then get on with it.
Bakari Neferu wrote:
<quoted text>
Waging wars and trading captives for manufactured goods had been going on all over the place, not just in Africa, and it had been going on for centuries.
The only thing that really made this particular experience unique was the sheer demand for slaves over even gold or other natural resources.
As far as learning, where would they have learned exactly? You think those Europeans would have invited them up to Britain to teach them how to self manufacture some of the deadliest weapons on the planet?
This is not about the machine gun rather producing the musket to industrializing.

Who do you think taught the Japanese in the late 19th century? In regards to industrializing.
Bigsmoke

Kingston Upon Thames, UK

#328 Nov 22, 2012
big mike M wrote:
<quoted text>
True.
But some African countries like Nigeria,Kenya and Rwanda are already trying to industrialize.
Yeah many African countries are now finally industrializing and with help from the Chinese it should really speed up and now the west will also have to compete thus will also do so.

I believe Angola is going to emerge as the big economic and military power of Africa in the coming decades.

The Angolan establishment know what they're doing even though the country is still in a mess after such a long civil war. They're selling oil in return for the Chinese to build infrastructure while teaching the locals. Luanda seems to be rapidly transforming

Most importantly is Angola is truly independent.

I'm not to sure about Nigeria, they're essentially still a British colony or should I say British-Dutch (Royal Dutch Shell) and I believe their potential is threatening to the UK & Netherlands so it would be best to keep them down.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

African-American Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Why did beautiful women like Rihanna,beyonce,ty... (Oct '12) 2 min Tierra 17
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min Grey Ghost 1,173,517
Non-AAs have NO RIGHT to be in this forum 4 min Spotted Girl 73
Did Africans REALLY sell other blacks into slav... 6 min fedupwiththemess 237
How has Africa from the begining of time influe... (May '13) 6 min African AE 3,414
BM is mad b/c white girls don't like him. 10 min Suebi212 434
Hebrew Israelite (Feb '11) 12 min JOHNS ON TOP OF IT 104,552
Dating African American men 40 min ThatBlackGuy 54
Name something POSITIVE about black people. 43 min Zombie Corpse Rental 348
I need proof that the Ancient Egyptians Were No... (Oct '07) 4 hr zIco zimp 28,579
More from around the web