-AAA-'s Black Denial!

“Try harder :)”

Level 8

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#350 Nov 23, 2012
Bigsmoke wrote:
<quoted text>
But he failed, that is the point.
Didn't you say he didn't bother trying?

He failed because former colonizers didn't like what he was doing.
Bigsmoke

Sandhurst, UK

#351 Nov 23, 2012
big mike M wrote:
<quoted text>
Didn't you say he didn't bother trying?
He failed because former colonizers didn't like what he was doing.
If I said that then I was wrong, my mistake.

Yep ''On February 24, 1966, Nkrumah was overthrown by a supported CIA-backed coup''.

“Africa”

Level 7

Since: Jan 12

Oakland

#352 Nov 23, 2012
Bigsmoke wrote:
<quoted text>
Wikipedia?
Too bad the link says ''Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name.''
Even still if what you quoted is true, then they simply didn't try hard enough.
Like I said, Africans didn't have any economic impetus to develop their own weapons until their supply got cut off.

The main reasons were the simple fact that European weapons were of higher quality and quantity and could be fetched at a lesser cost than domestic production.
Bigsmoke wrote:
Why couldn't they make weapons on par with Europeans?
Because they did not have the technological know-how. Because no one taught them like they did the Japanese.
Bigsmoke wrote:
That is not adaptation that is a dependency.
This is a non-sequitur. Adapting simply means adjusting or conforming to a different environment or circumstance. The Black Panthers didn't manufacture their own weapons, most groups who carry weapons, like almost any militia or mafia, don't, yet they still used them in their adaptation to the oppressive climate that was in my home city.
Bigsmoke wrote:
The Japanese re-engineered the musket and sent people to the west to learn.
African leaders could of easily done the same. No excuses sorry.
No, they could not have "easily" done the same.

Time for another lesson:

"But the Atlantic trade...lacked any of that 'development potential' which could have transferred the gains of European progress. It was concerned uniquely with narrow forms of exchange within fiercely guarded systems of monopoly. One can generalize the example of King Affonso's vain demand for shipbuilders; the last thing these Europeans could want, in fact, was the technological promotion of their African parters. If they exported guns to Africa it was only because, in their circumstances of internecine rivalry, they could not refuse them. But they certainly had no interest in prompting the know-how of firearms manufacture; and what went for guns went for everything else of this kind" p.230-31 The African Slave Trade, Basil Davidson.

Since you seem to be awfully dyslexic today, I've decided to replay this part that you seem to be not understanding:

"certainly had no interest in prompting the know-how of FIREARMS MANUFACTURE; and what went for guns went for EVERYTHING ELSE OF THIS KIND."

"One can generalize the example of KING AFFONSO'S VAIN DEMAND FOR SHIPBUILDERS."

Now go be illiterate with someone else.

“Africa”

Level 7

Since: Jan 12

Oakland

#353 Nov 23, 2012
Bigsmoke wrote:
<quoted text>
If I said that then I was wrong, my mistake.
Yep ''On February 24, 1966, Nkrumah was overthrown by a supported CIA-backed coup''.
You were wrong because you don't read. And this is simple stuff, which is why settled for Wikipedia. This googleable stuff, and you're sitting up here acting like it's never been published a billion times.

Read a got damn book.

“Africa”

Level 7

Since: Jan 12

Oakland

#354 Nov 23, 2012
I really want this to sink in, since, apparently some of us have a hard time with our reading comprehension abilities.

"But the Atlantic trade...lacked any of that 'development potential' which could have transferred the gains of European progress. It was concerned uniquely with narrow forms of exchange within fiercely guarded systems of monopoly. One can generalize the example of King Affonso's vain demand for shipbuilders; the last thing these Europeans could want, in fact, was the technological promotion of their African parters. If they exported guns to Africa it was only because, in their circumstances of internecine rivalry, they could not refuse them. But they certainly had no interest in prompting the know-how of firearms manufacture; and what went for guns went for everything else of this kind" p.230-31 The African Slave Trade, Basil Davidson.
Bigsmoke

Sandhurst, UK

#355 Nov 23, 2012
Bakari Neferu wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said, Africans didn't have any economic impetus to develop their own weapons until their supply got cut off.
The main reasons were the simple fact that European weapons were of higher quality and quantity and could be fetched at a lesser cost than domestic production.
Then clearly those Africans were stupid in that they were not thinking ahead.

They had 300+ years to develop their weapon production to be on par with Europeans. No excuses can eliminate this fact.
Bakari Neferu wrote:
<quoted text>
Because they did not have the technological know-how. Because no one taught them like they did the Japanese.
Because Japan sought to be taught or do you think Europeans sailed to Japan in order to teach them?

Lets not forget that they re-engineered the musket.

Africans did not seek to be taught and besides the few examples you provided, they didn't re-engineer the musket.
Bakari Neferu wrote:
<quoted text>
This is a non-sequitur. Adapting simply means adjusting or conforming to a different environment or circumstance. The Black Panthers didn't manufacture their own weapons, most groups who carry weapons, like almost any militia or mafia, don't, yet they still used them in their adaptation to the oppressive climate that was in my home city.
The Black Panthers were not an establishment like a Kingdom or State it was made up of citizens who lived in an ''industrialized'' country. No comparison sorry.
Bakari Neferu wrote:
<quoted text>
No, they could not have "easily" done the same.
Time for another lesson:
"But the Atlantic trade...lacked any of that 'development potential' which could have transferred the gains of European progress. It was concerned uniquely with narrow forms of exchange within fiercely guarded systems of monopoly. One can generalize the example of King Affonso's vain demand for shipbuilders; the last thing these Europeans could want, in fact, was the technological promotion of their African parters. If they exported guns to Africa it was only because, in their circumstances of internecine rivalry, they could not refuse them. But they certainly had no interest in prompting the know-how of firearms manufacture; and what went for guns went for everything else of this kind" p.230-31 The African Slave Trade, Basil Davidson.
Since you seem to be awfully dyslexic today, I've decided to replay this part that you seem to be not understanding:
"certainly had no interest in prompting the know-how of FIREARMS MANUFACTURE; and what went for guns went for EVERYTHING ELSE OF THIS KIND."
"One can generalize the example of KING AFFONSO'S VAIN DEMAND FOR SHIPBUILDERS."
Now go be illiterate with someone else.
Yes they could or are you implying that the Japanese are simply smart while Africans are stupid? If not then yes they easily could of done the same.
Bakari Neferu wrote:
<quoted text>
You were wrong because you don't read. And this is simple stuff, which is why settled for Wikipedia. This googleable stuff, and you're sitting up here acting like it's never been published a billion times.
Read a got damn book.
He didn't industrialize the country though so you'll never have a point with that. I was wrong if I said he refused but I was not wrong in the fact that only South Africa has industrialized. Also you're wrong in claiming it had bad effects, the guy was removed in a coup and the country never industrialized. So?????

Sorry but I don't read books and that is a vague statement. They're literally thousands of books out there, fiction and non-fiction. Which one do you suggest?
Bigsmoke

Sandhurst, UK

#356 Nov 23, 2012
Bakari Neferu wrote:
I really want this to sink in, since, apparently some of us have a hard time with our reading comprehension abilities.
"But the Atlantic trade...lacked any of that 'development potential' which could have transferred the gains of European progress. It was concerned uniquely with narrow forms of exchange within fiercely guarded systems of monopoly. One can generalize the example of King Affonso's vain demand for shipbuilders; the last thing these Europeans could want, in fact, was the technological promotion of their African parters. If they exported guns to Africa it was only because, in their circumstances of internecine rivalry, they could not refuse them. But they certainly had no interest in prompting the know-how of firearms manufacture; and what went for guns went for everything else of this kind" p.230-31 The African Slave Trade, Basil Davidson.
Lame excuse.

Everyone has a price.''Know-how'' can be bought. You do know in regards to the British it was companies such as ''Royal African Company'' doing the trading? These were made up of people who could be bought way before the government would get involved.

Not even that, all they had to do is send some to Europe to learn the ''know how'', nobody would of stopped them in the 15th or 16th century.

“Israel uses Jim Crow Terrorism”

Level 7

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#357 Nov 23, 2012
UGbeauty wrote:
<quoted text>
Or maybe you have a nasty attitude..
In real life I am a quiet guy so how can that be?

“But until then, I got you.”

Level 2

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#358 Nov 23, 2012
fair_guy wrote:
<quoted text>In real life I am a quiet guy so how can that be?
You know yourself better than I do. I can only judge your character by the way you post.

“Israel uses Jim Crow Terrorism”

Level 7

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#359 Nov 23, 2012
UGbeauty wrote:
<quoted text>
You know yourself better than I do. I can only judge your character by the way you post.
Pain makes me post this way. Happy Thanksgiving!

“But until then, I got you.”

Level 2

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#360 Nov 23, 2012
fair_guy wrote:
<quoted text>Pain makes me post this way. Happy Thanksgiving!
Well I'm sorry for your pain. I hope you get through it. Happy Thanksgiving to you too!!

“Africa”

Level 7

Since: Jan 12

Oakland

#361 Nov 23, 2012
Bigsmoke wrote:
<quoted text>
Then clearly those Africans were stupid in that they were not thinking ahead.
They had 300+ years to develop their weapon production to be on par with Europeans. No excuses can eliminate this fact.
Stupidity is something you have demonstrated and continue to demonstrate with staccato consistency. Not just in not knowing what the hell you're talking about, but in refusing to accept that you don't. You have no quantitative measure by which you can affirm that West Africans were lacking in any intellectual acuity.

Lack of intellectual acuity is the mark of the stupid. Not foretelling the future is not a trait of the stupid, is a trait of humans. There are no excuses being given. You are just unwilling to accept the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about. Bottom line is, these people had no relative impetus to manufacture weapons because they didn't know how, they couldn't make them as qualitative as Europeans, and European weapons were simply easier, more effective, and less costly to get a hold of.

Homo sapiens had 100,000 years to grow one crop. Were they stupid as well?
Bigsmoke wrote:
Because Japan sought to be taught or do you think Europeans sailed to Japan in order to teach them?
Lets not forget that they re-engineered the musket.
Africans did not seek to be taught and besides the few examples you provided, they didn't re-engineer the musket.
You have no evidence that they did not seek anything, as if the Portuguese would have taught them anyway. Selling guns was one of the crucial links into Africa along with other commodities that the Africans could not make. Teaching how to make these things, especially guns, would have made their efforts to get as many slaves as they got, virtually impossible.

Why would they slit their own throats like that? I keep asking you this and you keep ignoring the question.

Why would any Europeans have for teaching any Africans how to make guns when it would have meant cutting off their own supply of easy wealth? They had nothing to lose with Japs because they were not interesting in enslaving any of them.

With Africans, it was a completely different story.

“Africa”

Level 7

Since: Jan 12

Oakland

#362 Nov 23, 2012
Bigsmoke wrote:
The Black Panthers were not an establishment like a Kingdom or State it was made up of citizens who lived in an ''industrialized'' country. No comparison sorry.
West Africans and Japanese are no comparison. And I find it interesting how you keep using them as an example, and ONLY them, as if their example speaks for most people or that they were even in the same predicament as Africans were and had the same relationship with Europeans.

There is essentially little that is similar between where Japanese and West Africans from a historical perspective except for perhaps certain means of social organization and customs.

Also, it doesn't matter whether the Black Panthers lived in any type of country. What does the country being industrialized have to do with anything? They were a social unit, a social organization. So were the Italian, Russian, Sicilian, Mexican, and Irish mafias. These people established their own "empires", so to speak, using the same systems of social organization that it took to establish any African polity.

I don't recall any of these people manufacturing their own weapons. Are they also stupid?
Bigsmoke wrote:
Yes they could or are you implying that the Japanese are simply smart while Africans are stupid? If not then yes they easily could of done the same.
The only person suggesting that Africans are stupid here is you. Whatever my argument is, that they were stupid always seems to be your over-riding conclusion. Again, if the Africans who were never taught how to make guns or industrialize were stupid for not industrializing or making guns, then early humans were stupid for not farming earlier. MUCH earlier.
Bigsmoke wrote:
He didn't industrialize the country though so you'll never have a point with that.
No, my point has already been had with that. You said that Africans never attempted to industrialize, and kept saying it, and I proved to you that you don't know jack squat. You must have made at least three declarations in this thread that have been proven false.

One, the Africans did develop their own guns, just only after their supply was cut off.
Two, that post colonial Africans did attempt to industrialize
Three, that Africans DID NOT have "as easy" of an opportunity to learn how to industrialize and make guns from Europeans as Japanese did, for the simple reason that Europeans had no issues with Japanese and actually saw them and respected them as equals, whereas Africans were dealt with in a much more exploitative fashion and refused the same opportunities presented to the Japs.

And finally, Africans did attempt to learn development from Europeans, and as I have been saying, WERE CUT OFF. Another concept your feeble mind tends not to understand.

"The Portuguese promised to train and educate the young men to become priests and later to return them to the Congo. King Meremba let the Portuguese convince him to take the Christian name, Alfonso, as a show of support. When Alfonso asked for the return of a few of his former prisoners, who had been trained to serve as physicians, surgeons, pharmacists, assistants for shipbuilders and carpenters, his requests were denied."

http://www.africaspeaks.com/reasoning/index.p...

“Africa”

Level 7

Since: Jan 12

Oakland

#363 Nov 23, 2012
Bigsmoke wrote:
I was wrong if I said he refused but I was not wrong in the fact that only South Africa has industrialized.
That's not the argument, Straw Man. The argument is that Africans made efforts to industrialize. You were shown to be incorrect on this quite few times until it finally sunk in, and I still don't think it's sunk in all the way.
Bigsmoke wrote:
Also you're wrong in claiming it had bad effects, the guy was removed in a coup and the country never industrialized. So?????
No, I'm not wrong, dummy.

Unlike you, I am actually literate, and to don't pop off fallacies a mile a minute.

Unlike you, I actually read stuff and understand what it is that I read.

Unlike you, I haven't consistently been proven wrong about even the most commonsensical facts, because

Unlike you, I actually know what the hell I'm talking about.

Kwame Nkrumah put that country into massive dept. He forwent hiring competent personnel in favor of lap dogs, he neglected independent (small) farmers, he suppressed profit margins, which incited corruption and political and social decadence, and he refused to cede a platform for the political opposition to voice their criticisms and arguments.

Why stupid fools like you constantly seek to try and educate those who know more that you about the subjects you seek to pontificate upon, is beyond me, but I know one thing:

It is getting incredibly annoying.
Bigsmoke wrote:
Sorry but I don't read books and that is a vague statement. They're literally thousands of books out there, fiction and non-fiction. Which one do you suggest?
In particular, read Africa and the Slave Trade by Basil Davidson as he outlines in that book the developments made in Africa leading to the conquest of Africa.

In general, read books about the subjects you like to debate other people on so you don't sound so uneducated and unintelligent when you try and speak to those issues.

“Africa”

Level 7

Since: Jan 12

Oakland

#364 Nov 23, 2012
Bigsmoke wrote:
<quoted text>
Lame excuse.
Everyone has a price.''Know-how'' can be bought. You do know in regards to the British it was companies such as ''Royal African Company'' doing the trading? These were made up of people who could be bought way before the government would get involved.
"Everyone has a price"? Idiot.

The Japs did all that IN FRONT OF THEIR FACES, with government acknowledgement. They sent people over there and got teachers to come to their government. They did not sneak around and dodge and bribe. Nothing was under the table. It was all visible and plain.
Bigsmoke wrote:
Not even that, all they had to do is send some to Europe to learn the ''know how'', nobody would of stopped them in the 15th or 16th century.
The industrial revolution didn't occur until the mid 18th century. Japanese industrialization did not occur until the late 19th century, not the 15th or 16th.

You seem to be struggling to keep up with your own irrational arguments. You keep harping on this point that Africans should have developed and industrialized LIKE THE JAPS. Right?

Well the Japs didn't develop until the late 18th century, so your time frame is off. Keep it within the mid 19th to 20th century, not 15th or 16th. And while they were doing that, they were not involved in any wars. They saw others being colonized and sought to protect themselves. Europeans didn't have a problem with this because they were not interested in exploiting Japanese for their human labor or natural resources like they were in Africa, nor did they view them with the same negative connotations.

So again, where are the Africans and the Japanese alike? What about their predicaments were the same?
Bigsmoke

Sandhurst, UK

#365 Nov 23, 2012
Bakari Neferu wrote:
<quoted text>
Stupidity is something you have demonstrated and continue to demonstrate with staccato consistency. Not just in not knowing what the hell you're talking about, but in refusing to accept that you don't. You have no quantitative measure by which you can affirm that West Africans were lacking in any intellectual acuity.
Lack of intellectual acuity is the mark of the stupid. Not foretelling the future is not a trait of the stupid, is a trait of humans. There are no excuses being given. You are just unwilling to accept the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about. Bottom line is, these people had no relative impetus to manufacture weapons because they didn't know how, they couldn't make them as qualitative as Europeans, and European weapons were simply easier, more effective, and less costly to get a hold of.
Homo sapiens had 100,000 years to grow one crop. Were they stupid as well?
Stop projecting.

I know full well about the subject in hand. All you've managed to do is come up with excuses for these stupid leaders.

Is Africa not the poorest continent in the world?

That crop comparison is really pathetic.
Bakari Neferu wrote:
<quoted text>
You have no evidence that they did not seek anything, as if the Portuguese would have taught them anyway. Selling guns was one of the crucial links into Africa along with other commodities that the Africans could not make. Teaching how to make these things, especially guns, would have made their efforts to get as many slaves as they got, virtually impossible.
Why would they slit their own throats like that? I keep asking you this and you keep ignoring the question.
Why would any Europeans have for teaching any Africans how to make guns when it would have meant cutting off their own supply of easy wealth? They had nothing to lose with Japs because they were not interesting in enslaving any of them.
With Africans, it was a completely different story.
They clearly didn't. Some isolated groups may of tried but in all Central-West Africans didn't achieve in locally producing muskets to industrializing. This is fact.

So now you're saying Africans could not make guns? You're essentially calling them inferior.
toadmann

Pittsburgh, PA

#366 Nov 23, 2012
youtube.com/watch... ……Young Stinkers or Old Farts and AAA wHAT EVER,OK?
Bigsmoke

Sandhurst, UK

#367 Nov 23, 2012
Bakari Neferu wrote:
<quoted text>
West Africans and Japanese are no comparison. And I find it interesting how you keep using them as an example, and ONLY them, as if their example speaks for most people or that they were even in the same predicament as Africans were and had the same relationship with Europeans.
There is essentially little that is similar between where Japanese and West Africans from a historical perspective except for perhaps certain means of social organization and customs.
Also, it doesn't matter whether the Black Panthers lived in any type of country. What does the country being industrialized have to do with anything? They were a social unit, a social organization. So were the Italian, Russian, Sicilian, Mexican, and Irish mafias. These people established their own "empires", so to speak, using the same systems of social organization that it took to establish any African polity.
I don't recall any of these people manufacturing their own weapons. Are they also stupid?
Central-West Africans, Horners, Ottomans, South Asians and East Asians with the exception of Japan were all ruled by people who failed to adapt in the late 19th century and early 20th century. So most places within these regions were colonized or infiltrated by those who did adapt; Europeans, USA & Japan.

You can't compare a group made up of mere citizens within a state to a state. You really are confused here. Until those mafias become government, you'll never have a point.
Bakari Neferu wrote:
<quoted text>
The only person suggesting that Africans are stupid here is you. Whatever my argument is, that they were stupid always seems to be your over-riding conclusion. Again, if the Africans who were never taught how to make guns or industrialize were stupid for not industrializing or making guns, then early humans were stupid for not farming earlier. MUCH earlier.
It is you, you're implying it.
Bakari Neferu wrote:
<quoted text>
No, my point has already been had with that. You said that Africans never attempted to industrialize, and kept saying it, and I proved to you that you don't know jack squat. You must have made at least three declarations in this thread that have been proven false.
One, the Africans did develop their own guns, just only after their supply was cut off.
Two, that post colonial Africans did attempt to industrialize
Three, that Africans DID NOT have "as easy" of an opportunity to learn how to industrialize and make guns from Europeans as Japanese did, for the simple reason that Europeans had no issues with Japanese and actually saw them and respected them as equals, whereas Africans were dealt with in a much more exploitative fashion and refused the same opportunities presented to the Japs.
And finally, Africans did attempt to learn development from Europeans, and as I have been saying, WERE CUT OFF. Another concept your feeble mind tends not to understand.
"The Portuguese promised to train and educate the young men to become priests and later to return them to the Congo. King Meremba let the Portuguese convince him to take the Christian name, Alfonso, as a show of support. When Alfonso asked for the return of a few of his former prisoners, who had been trained to serve as physicians, surgeons, pharmacists, assistants for shipbuilders and carpenters, his requests were denied."
http://www.africaspeaks.com/reasoning/index.p...
Ghana is not Africa sorry. My main point is that no other African country has industrialized except South Africa.

The rest of what you typed up was just a repeat of your excuses. I've read it already.
Bigsmoke

Sandhurst, UK

#368 Nov 23, 2012
Bakari Neferu wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not the argument, Straw Man. The argument is that Africans made efforts to industrialize. You were shown to be incorrect on this quite few times until it finally sunk in, and I still don't think it's sunk in all the way.
<quoted text>
No, I'm not wrong, dummy.
Unlike you, I am actually literate, and to don't pop off fallacies a mile a minute.
Unlike you, I actually read stuff and understand what it is that I read.
Unlike you, I haven't consistently been proven wrong about even the most commonsensical facts, because
Unlike you, I actually know what the hell I'm talking about.
Kwame Nkrumah put that country into massive dept. He forwent hiring competent personnel in favor of lap dogs, he neglected independent (small) farmers, he suppressed profit margins, which incited corruption and political and social decadence, and he refused to cede a platform for the political opposition to voice their criticisms and arguments.
Why stupid fools like you constantly seek to try and educate those who know more that you about the subjects you seek to pontificate upon, is beyond me, but I know one thing:
It is getting incredibly annoying.
<quoted text>
In particular, read Africa and the Slave Trade by Basil Davidson as he outlines in that book the developments made in Africa leading to the conquest of Africa.
In general, read books about the subjects you like to debate other people on so you don't sound so uneducated and unintelligent when you try and speak to those issues.
This has come across as more of an emotional rant than someone trying to put their point across.

You clearly do not understand how it should be done and where ''Kwame Nkrumah'' went wrong.

Create an independent central bank to serve your country and the debt would of been ''public debt'' not ''external debt''. Spend on industrializing the country; all sectors. Then export the manufactured goods which would help reduce public debt. Then once that country looks secure other countries will even start buying its public debt like how many countries eg China bought a lot of US public debt in the 1990s which was a great time for the US economy.

''Kwame Nkrumah'' borrowed money from creditors outside Ghana. Big mistake.

For someone who's supposed to of read books on the subject you do seem to know little.
Bigsmoke

Sandhurst, UK

#369 Nov 23, 2012
Bakari Neferu wrote:
<quoted text>
"Everyone has a price"? Idiot.
The Japs did all that IN FRONT OF THEIR FACES, with government acknowledgement. They sent people over there and got teachers to come to their government. They did not sneak around and dodge and bribe. Nothing was under the table. It was all visible and plain.
The industrial revolution didn't occur until the mid 18th century. Japanese industrialization did not occur until the late 19th century, not the 15th or 16th.
You seem to be struggling to keep up with your own irrational arguments. You keep harping on this point that Africans should have developed and industrialized LIKE THE JAPS. Right?
Well the Japs didn't develop until the late 18th century, so your time frame is off. Keep it within the mid 19th to 20th century, not 15th or 16th. And while they were doing that, they were not involved in any wars. They saw others being colonized and sought to protect themselves. Europeans didn't have a problem with this because they were not interested in exploiting Japanese for their human labor or natural resources like they were in Africa, nor did they view them with the same negative connotations.
So again, where are the Africans and the Japanese alike? What about their predicaments were the same?
When did I ever say Japan industrialized before late 19th century?

The vast source of African arms should of came from local production over those 300+ years to of been effective enough and then to of industrialized by the late 19th century.

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
White men are better lovers? 2 min confidence 164
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min Dagne Nabbit 1,236,784
Why do good looking black women like white men ... (Sep '12) 4 min Janis 7,175
The White Man Is The Devil.........Really! 5 min confidence 83
Sweden is the model country for whites 7 min confidence 65
The Atlantic Slave Trade Explained! 8 min scholar86 12
Why do gay black men love white men so much =) (Jan '09) 10 min confidence 366
Wake up! "AFRICAN AMERICANS" are not AFRICAN. (Feb '11) 51 min Mikemike 1,116
Hebrew Israelite (Feb '11) 55 min Ingwe Temujin 121,160
All women prefer white men 1 hr Janis 4,899
More from around the web