Afrikaners (Europeans): "We demand ou...
andland

Howell, MI

#168 Mar 21, 2013
and African real dark skin African Ohmmish people..
andland

Howell, MI

#169 Mar 21, 2013
once the book was discovered i mean blacks kind of have the tools to progress now..
andland

Howell, MI

#170 Mar 21, 2013
it doesn't matter if blacks created it or not..

it's just that's the tool for the success.

Level 4

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#171 Mar 21, 2013
Bakari Neferu wrote:
<quoted text>
No they weren't. Their armies could field thousands and even tens of thousands of people at a single battle.
Go learn something and stop being stupid.
<quoted text>
Machine Guns vs Spears and Arrows... what a stupid ass.
That surrendering didn't occur nearly as often in West Africa and Northeast Africa though, the militaristic methods of Africans were even more advanced and tended to have greater access to modern weapons.
<quoted text>
You just said that they DIDN'T want to turn Africa white like they did North America, and then in the very next sentence, openly admit that they would have turned Africa white had it not been for the African environment---meaning that they wanted to turn Africa white but COULDN'T.
Do you ever get tired of embarrassing yourself by exposing your laughable ignorance?
<quoted text>
Only after they could industrialize the making of guns. Prior to that, it they had been involved with Africa for centuries and could barely get a foothold of Africa; only in weaker parts like Southern Africa and places like Angola. Not much in West Africa though.
<quoted text>
No, they were, in fact, very well organized, which is how they managed to win so many battles against Euros in the first place. The only real thing Euros had in their favor was super advanced guns. That's it.
When Africans had equal access to the same technology, they could easily defend themselves, which is why Euros tried so vehemently to cut them off.
<quoted text>
They gave them plenty more problems than Native Americans ever did. They also gave them more problems than Indians (from India) and Southwest Asians.
You're a fool.
<quoted text>
Yes it could, actually.
You can have thousands of puny men at once. Doesn't make a difference. Surrender was their best friend and one they used often. I am learned in these matters. Machine guns my foot. You try to make out that the poor old Africans hadn't a chance. They outnumbered the Europeans so much and still got hammered into submission on their own patch. The Africans are not a militarily successful people. They lack discipline and tactical knoweldge.

No you pityful fool. They didn't want to turn Africa white because of the environment. There was never a plan to plant Africa to the same level north America was planted. There was no huge push for west Africa at these times you talk of either. This is rubbish and crap coming from an American who doesn't know about history.

“Africa”

Level 7

Since: Jan 12

Oakland

#172 Mar 21, 2013
Abrasive Beast wrote:
You can have thousands of puny men at once. Doesn't make a difference. Surrender was their best friend and one they used often. I am learned in these matters. Machine guns my foot. You try to make out that the poor old Africans hadn't a chance. They outnumbered the Europeans so much and still got hammered into submission on their own patch.
Machine Guns vs Spears and Arrows....what a stupid ass.
Abrasive Beast wrote:
The Africans are not a militarily successful people. They lack discipline and tactical knoweldge.
Then how they managed to defeat the British, French, Boers, Arabs, Berbers, Indians, Portuguese, and Fatimids on so many occassions, I wonder....
Abrasive Beast wrote:
No you pityful fool. They didn't want to turn Africa white because of the environment. There was never a plan to plant Africa to the same level north America was planted.
And yet, interestingly, these people only stopped moving north when they ran into diseases and death---which, again, means that they wanted to settle Africa, but were halted BY Africa.

They took over north America because the resistence wasn't strong enough. They DIDN'T take over Africa, population wise,
Abrasive Beast wrote:
There was no huge push for west Africa at these times you talk of either. This is rubbish and crap coming from an American who doesn't know about history.
Don't I?

I know that various European groups attempted to establish control over much of the trade concerning West Africa due to Africa's inherent wealth. Many established settlements there, but were obliged to pay rent to West Africans. In many cases, they were driven away from their settlements, by Africans, if they got out of line, and a lot of times, their forts and whatnot were besieged by Africans.

Unlike in the Americas, Euros hardly ever went into the interior of West Africa, unless they got permission that is.

West Africa had oodles of gold. The Portuguese and the Dutch knew this and wanted it. So how come they didn't just take it like they did in the Americas?

Because if they tried, as they tried to do at first, they would have gotten their asses handed to them.

Why?

Because West Africans were actually competent and repulsing Europeans due to their military strength and political prowess, unlike the Native Americans.

Only with the rise of the industrial revolution that gave Euros their gun power, as well as cut off from acquiring guns for Africa by Euros, that things would change for the worse for West African groups.

Level 4

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#173 Mar 21, 2013
Yes I read that Africans didn't let Europeans into the interior during the Atlantic Slave trade, which means that the Africans were not at all totally powerless.

“Africa”

Level 7

Since: Jan 12

Oakland

#174 Mar 21, 2013
"They took over north America because the resistence wasn't strong enough. They DIDN'T take over Africa, population wise,"

...because the resistence (from the environment) WAS strong enough.

“Africa”

Level 7

Since: Jan 12

Oakland

#175 Mar 21, 2013
McAlister73 wrote:
Yes I read that Africans didn't let Europeans into the interior during the Atlantic Slave trade, which means that the Africans were not at all totally powerless.
Exactly. And this fool, who, himself, doesn't know much about African history apparently, wants me, someone who studies African history extensively, to believe that Africans were just sitting there waiting for Euros to take over their lands.

Africans were never weak, disorganized, or lacking in military skill, prowess and ingenuity. They were mainly disadvantaged by Euro's superior weaponry. This is why European powers tried with all their might to prevent Africans from having access to guns.

“Try harder :)”

Level 8

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#176 Mar 21, 2013
I just want to add this...Euronuts LOVE claiming that Bantu people were too responsible for the massacre of the Khoisan people and 'replaced' them.

What they don't know is that Hunter-gatherer groups rarely generally form extensive urbanized or heavily cohesive large communities, and so, it is no mystery that agriculturalists like spreading Bantu-speaking groups would eventually overwhelm them in numbers where said migrants sought settlement. A "replacement" suggests that these groups were essentially demised out of their existence, which is misleading, since hunter-gatherer groups and traditional communities of respective regions continue to reside in territories largely in central, eastern and southern African regions. The Khoisans, pygmies, the sedentary Sandawe, etc, have not been replaced. Some of these groups either formed their own isolated or semi-isolated communities, or simply integrated into the larger Bantu-speaking populations. In fact, European invaders had done more than any Africans could have, to wipe out some and/or the other of the said 'traditional' hunter-gatherer and sedentary inhabitants loosely dispersed across large swaths of territory that would eventually come under Bantu-speaking agricultural communities.

So yeah I wanted to point that out before any Euronut could say Bantu people are responsible for the deceasing population of the San people.

How else does one explain the click punctuating Bantu languages of Southern Africa and presumably Khoisan features of a Nelson Mandela?
http://politicsoffthegrid.files.wordpress.com...

Hmmm.....

Level 6

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#177 Mar 21, 2013
Ranter wrote:
<quoted text>
Let’s replace “trespassers” with “slavery leftovers” and see how you like your own words lol
"They are nothing more than violent slavery leftoversrs! it will never be done, they all must be thrown out' or leave, or be exterminated!
""END OF STORY"" "
I AGREE SO GTFO and take as many of your chimpanions as you can on your way out.
This is why i am glad that y'all are getting made good in SA were you pinkies don't belong, because you are some arrogant sob's you are ''Trespassers'' in a land that does not belong to you' leave or be made good'

Level 6

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#178 Mar 21, 2013
Bakari Neferu wrote:
<quoted text>
What are you talking about?
You tried to compare the descendants of slaves to the descendants of oppressors.
The Boers VIOLENTLY OPPRESSED Africans. Once more, they did that in NATIVE homeland of those same Africans.
So your idiotic comparison, and even dumber question, doesn't work.
They aren't entitled to take a bath in a watering hole in Africa, let alone their own country there. If they want their own country, they need to take their asses back to Europe and settle it with their European brethren.
I say ""ENOUGH"" of arguing with these pig colored pink skinned 'MUTANTS' they know the history and what they've done, they do not have any logic' and are very arrogant'' away with these stupid head games they ''play'' it is the time by prophecy to ""THROW THEM OUT NOW"" by any means necessary!!!!!!!!

****GAME OVER****

Level 4

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#181 Mar 23, 2013
Bakari Neferu wrote:
<quoted text>
Machine Guns vs Spears and Arrows....what a stupid ass.
<quoted text>
Then how they managed to defeat the British, French, Boers, Arabs, Berbers, Indians, Portuguese, and Fatimids on so many occassions, I wonder....
<quoted text>
And yet, interestingly, these people only stopped moving north when they ran into diseases and death---which, again, means that they wanted to settle Africa, but were halted BY Africa.
They took over north America because the resistence wasn't strong enough. They DIDN'T take over Africa, population wise,
<quoted text>
Don't I?
I know that various European groups attempted to establish control over much of the trade concerning West Africa due to Africa's inherent wealth. Many established settlements there, but were obliged to pay rent to West Africans. In many cases, they were driven away from their settlements, by Africans, if they got out of line, and a lot of times, their forts and whatnot were besieged by Africans.
Unlike in the Americas, Euros hardly ever went into the interior of West Africa, unless they got permission that is.
West Africa had oodles of gold. The Portuguese and the Dutch knew this and wanted it. So how come they didn't just take it like they did in the Americas?
Because if they tried, as they tried to do at first, they would have gotten their asses handed to them.
Why?
Because West Africans were actually competent and repulsing Europeans due to their military strength and political prowess, unlike the Native Americans.
Only with the rise of the industrial revolution that gave Euros their gun power, as well as cut off from acquiring guns for Africa by Euros, that things would change for the worse for West African groups.
You are misleading with this information. Europeans battered these pathetic African ''natives'' into submission without machine guns many many many times. It is, amusing, to me, to watch your lame excuses.

So now your claiming the African climate haulted the settlers? While not being true, the climate would have done a better job stopping the settlers than the pathetic fighters. Europeans never wanted to take over Africa population wise. And that is fact.

West Africans were as pathetic as anything else on that continent. I have the battles to prove it if you wish to see? You'll probably end up crying your poor old eyes out when your myths are exposed.

Europeans had the brains to invent the technology. Why not use it? Africans wouldn't have done the same?

Level 4

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#182 Mar 23, 2013
Proud african american wrote:
<quoted text>
This is why i am glad that y'all are getting made good in SA were you pinkies don't belong, because you are some arrogant sob's you are ''Trespassers'' in a land that does not belong to you' leave or be made good'
Then in your logic blacks should be driven out of Europe.

Very well.

Level 4

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#183 Mar 23, 2013
Proud african american wrote:
<quoted text>
I say ""ENOUGH"" of arguing with these pig colored pink skinned 'MUTANTS' they know the history and what they've done, they do not have any logic' and are very arrogant'' away with these stupid head games they ''play'' it is the time by prophecy to ""THROW THEM OUT NOW"" by any means necessary!!!!!!!!
****GAME OVER****
Game over for blacks in Europe too I suppose.

The rising far right will have a field day.

Level 4

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#184 Mar 23, 2013
Bakari Neferu wrote:
Africans were never weak, disorganized, or lacking in military skill, prowess and ingenuity. They were mainly disadvantaged by Euro's superior weaponry. This is why European powers tried with all their might to prevent Africans from having access to guns.
Yes they were. You are biased. So don't give me the old 'I studied the history'' crap. So did I. Africans were/are weak. Africans were/are still diorganised. Africans were/are still lacking in military skill, prowwess and ingenuity.

Recently a small number of French troops entered Mali and battered Africans rebels in their own country. The Malian people bowed to the French as if they were heroes. From a purely military standpoint, the European powers could still defeat any country/countries in Africa in a war very easily.
Troll Hunter

New York, NY

#185 Mar 23, 2013
Abrasive Beast wrote:
<quoted text>
You are misleading with this information. Europeans battered these pathetic African ''natives'' into submission without machine guns many many many times. It is, amusing, to me, to watch your lame excuses.
So now your claiming the African climate haulted the settlers? While not being true, the climate would have done a better job stopping the settlers than the pathetic fighters. Europeans never wanted to take over Africa population wise. And that is fact.
West Africans were as pathetic as anything else on that continent. I have the battles to prove it if you wish to see? You'll probably end up crying your poor old eyes out when your myths are exposed.
Europeans had the brains to invent the technology. Why not use it? Africans wouldn't have done the same?
Are you back to being an Afrikaner now or did you switch over to being an Irish former IRA soldier again?
Toomis

Houston, TX

#186 Mar 23, 2013
Bakari Neferu wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't work, dummy.
Boers came to Africa via their own volition and racially oppressed the natives. Blacks did not come to this country voluntarily and racially oppress anyone.
Wrong,only Hottentots sparsely occupied South Africa and with little interaction with the Boer. No Bantu were there until they invaded. Bantus then annihilate Hottentots, Bushmen and Pygmys. Often eat them and rape baby girls to cure AIDs.

Level 5

Since: Nov 10

Dublin

#187 Mar 23, 2013
Troll Hunter wrote:
<quoted text>Are you back to being an Afrikaner now or did you switch over to being an Irish former IRA soldier again?
Humberman thinks the IRA are ''pseudo-Irish communist murderers''

LOL....Oh and he doesn't think he's Irish either, he's ''British''....

Your comment will drive him over the edge....
Europigs Stole America

Ashburn, VA

#188 Mar 23, 2013
Who is going to win in case of a civil war in South Africa? These guys:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/05/0...
or these guys:
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pFj0HdW2iDs/0.jpg
pyramids not made of mud

Leeds, UK

#189 Mar 23, 2013
Dont worry my fair Africanner white brothers!

Your time will come!

One day when white people in USA and Europe have lost 50 to 75% of their familys and friends to dangerous and assorted sewage people those liberal c&&ts will come to realize that we are not all the same and we are mortal enemys.

They will learn that the world is to dangerous to keep non white people around any more. They will reazlize the damgage done already and will elect to get rid of every one who is even 1 drop non white.

Then you my white brothers. The true africans! can haver all of africa!

Lol how riddicolous! blacks didnt even name their own continent.

lol they probably would have called it oook or ugggrrrhh.

But they already use those 2 words for 50 thousand other things.

So we non chimpanzee cousins named it and stuff.

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
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 min Earl 1,643,817
WM please dont sexually molest the Turkeys 4 min Marcus Washington 11
I feel like I can't be with a white guy if he's... 10 min Dixieeland 131
Mouthy know-it-all BW. ugh... 10 min sbt 23
Maceo the Sociopath is HAS NO WHERE TO GO ON TH... 17 min Sbt 1
News Latinos and Whiteness 57 min UruEuWauWau 42
Are Dominicans Black or Latino? (Sep '08) 1 hr UruEuWauWau 983
Everyday I thank the Lord I am Black!! 1 hr Blackhead Popper 394
Do black men really have larger penises? (Sep '10) 3 hr Yomamma 1,603
Homogeneity Is The ONLY Way To MAGA 11 hr KIR SUCKA 28
More from around the web