Why DO we want to fill America with non-whites?

wrong.

White Dutch Africans are known as "Afrikaners".

not "Afrikans".

J0NAH is calling black people, from Africa, "Afrikans".

as opposed to "Africans". Like it makes a difference.

 

that's 100% not who J0NAH is talking about.

he is calling black Africans, native to Africa, "Afrikans", and claiming its different from "Africans".

 

As most people know Africa is a place which exists regardless of "prisms of gazes" or MOD EDIT - Rule 3 random spellings.

 

youre entitled to call it whatever you like just as ican call it Afrika MOD EDIT - Rule 3

 

That really depends on your perspective.

What difference does that make, do you think it is the job of certain countries to advance other countries even if they don't want it?

 

Where was I talking about advancing other countries? I was talking about countries advancing themselves.

 

You have absolutely no idea how advanced Africa would have been if there had been no colonization, for all you know they could have become a greater power than the USA and there is nothing to you do to prove otherwise.

 

Explain how. I've heard arguements to the contrary-that when Europeans colonize and have power in places they tend to improve the standards there.

 

Yet you have no comparisons to use .. did Europeans colonize Japan .. no and just how are their standards now?

There is absolutely no way you or anyone else can say with any level of certainty that a country that had been colonized would have turned out better or worse had it not been colonized.

 

I would disagree and say that one can make that prediction some level of certainty.

 

I think it is reasonable to express annoyance when threads are polluted with utter nonsense. And yes you can call it Afrika, absurd and pointless as that is. You claimed the mispelled word had some kind of esoteric meaning though, which is just cheap fraud.

 

Sure we do. Do you honestly not see any patterns between countries?

 

For example, colonization made america the powerful nation it is today, just like canada and australia.

 

You are welcome to disagree as much as you like, the fact remains that it is impossible to say what would or would not have happened if colonization had not occurred.

- - - Updated - - -

No we do not.

- - - Updated - - -

You make my point for me . .explain how you know that had colonization not happened then ANY of the countries you mentioned above would be worse of than they are now?

You cannot.

 

Who made all the inventions and created a democracy and federal government in America-the Indian tribes, or the Europeans? Not all natives were hunter gatherers and they had forms of government-but look at american history. The government that unified all 50 states was not the indian tribes governments and laws.

 

Again you are begging the question, how do you know that all those inventions, democracy and the federal government would not have been created by the Indian tribes had there been no colonization.

you are committing an argument from ignorance fallacy. An argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

1. true
2. false
3. unknown between true or false
4. being unknowable (among the first three).

In this particular case the only logically answer to the question of whether a country, people etc would have achieved anything without colonization is answer 3 or 4.

 

The Native Americans were equally advanced as the europeans, especially in the South, Mayans, Incas etc, they had such an amazing and cultured civilization that should be an inspiration to everyone instead of being something to belittle.

 

It's ironic you speak of false dichtomies. Your options ignore "highly likely" among other things.

 

nothing ironic, unless you can show where I have asserted either of the issues being fact, perhaps you should actually read what has been written not what you wish to see, then you will find that I have not made any statement asserting either way .. I have simply asked questions and shown that it is impossible to actually know what the outcome would have been if colonization had not occurred, where as you and Sam have made absolute statements that are nothing more than arguments from ignorance

 

It's often "impossible to know" but so likely suggesting you have "no idea" would suggest sophistry. You can dismiss any prediction this was. It's "impossible to know" a cup of water will boil at 100: maybe this time it's a 10000. So let's not boil water. MOD EDIT - Rule 3

 

As usual when faced with reality the right move into the realms of demeaning others simply because they have no adequate response and are to egotistical to admit their error.

 

Irony and chutzpah.