Zimbabwe's latest crisis

Your revisionist screed is a classic.....first off, remember NO ONE ASKED THE BRITS OR ANYONE ELSE TO SHOW UP ON THE CONTINENT OF AFRICA AND SET UP SHOP OR "save Africa from the Africans". What was done was colonialism and imperialism with little regards for the native population beyond how they could be molded into a servicable population for the colonizers needs.

No one said Africans are perfect.....that standard seems to come out of the closet when white colonizers are given the boot. Of course, Brits invasion/occupation of Ireland or the French in Vietnam (no black folk there), or the fascism/authoritarism/dictaorship/communist suppression of Chile, Spain, Italy, Russia, Poland, France....or WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc....and all subsequent aftermath through the decades is perfectly justifiable in Poohbear's eyes.

GMAFB

 

You didn't mention the Zulu empire and its sophisticated killing machine.

 

I have to imagine you do not know what you are talking about. I trust you would not be being dishonest about this. Liberal Democracy, my arse. Mass killing, throwing people off their land and putting British in their place, giving the Brits all the land for 'farms' when it was accepted that they would be looking for gold. Making the people whose land it was work as their slaves to get enough money to live in their own homes and pay the Brits rent. Whipping, massacres, more whipping....and you call this liberal democracy. My God.

I have already provided you with a video talking about and showing the kind of inhumanity Britain showed to the people of Africa.

Here is your benign, sophisictated Liberal democracy 'white' people. Watch and Learn.

History of South Africa Pt 10 of 12 Rhodesia 1890-1980 - YouTube

 

It is possible that I will wake up one morning and find that I actually give a sh!t about Zimbabwe... but that is not this morning....

Isn't it interesting that none of these sad situations occurred when Zimbabwe was Rhodesia -- a country run by the descendants of Europeans...? Just sayin'....

 

In Australia the feeling of the British was that one day the aboriginals would be educated, Christianized,
cultured in white man's ways, learn English, understand science, accept liberal democracy. And one day
they could vote.
Aboriginals were taken into missions and received white man education. They received our medications,
they could travel whereas before they had been restrained by tribal territories, they could wear shoes and
Western clothing, drive cars, be a part of the big picture of Australia. I know of none who want to go back
to the good old days of digging holes in the dirt to sleep at night.
Sure - there were people who exploited them, there were settlers who shot them (against British law,) and
people who hate 'black' people - but the general thrust of 'colonialism' was that all settlers to our country
would be one people, one nation.
And that goes for many other nations who were overtaken by the British or joined the Commonwealth of
their own volition (think Fiji)

 

You need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills. I've highlighted the appropriate sentence. If you STILL don't get it, I'll elaborate......war, crime, etc. are not indicative to only one race or ethnicity. What alt-right/white supremacists dogma always falls back on is the "well, black people do it to!" Now, all you have to do it explain to the reading audience how that justifies the imperialistic/colonialist attitudes of Europeans (no strangers to vicious empires) to Africa and Asia. We'll wait.

 

As always, the devil is in the details:

The Impacts of English Colonial Terrorism and Genocide on Indigenous/Black Australians - Asafa Jalata, 2013 (sagepub.com)

Trauma of Australia’s Indigenous ‘Stolen Generations’ is still affecting children today (nature.com)

You invade someone else's country, do this crap and expect to be what, treated with civility? Typical mindset of alt-right/white supremacist mind set that permeated European colonialist.

 

There was a Zulu empire. The Zulus practiced total warfare - extermination, burning etc..
The Aztec had the most blood thirsty empire - it's subjects were there to be eaten
or be human sacrifices.
The Mongol empire killed off 12% of all humans on earth - not only massacring whole cities
but coming back 2 or 3 days later to finish the job.

Whites? - nah, they are just p.u.s.s.y. cats.

 

I often say to people, if you feel guilty about 'white colonialism' then just leave. Go
back to Europe. But remember, 'white' people in Europe were black until about 10k
years ago, and Europe belonged to other humans.
Generally, people who talk about 'colonialism' often have little understanding of
history and little regard for aboriginal people - it's a hate thing.

 

Meaningless whataboutism is all you have to EXCUSE the ATROCITIES perpetrated by colonialists?

Sad!

 

Uh, are you excusing the mindless cruelty of Zulus, Mongols and Aztecs?
None of these ethnic groups would put you in a reservation, or send you to
a white school, convert you to Christianity or give you an iPhone.

 

All you did was just prove my point, son. You still didn't answer the question .... explain to the reading audience how the above justifies the imperialistic/colonialist attitudes of Europeans (no strangers to vicious empires) to Africa and Asia.

And if you want the play a numbers game of sorts.....WW1, WW2, the nonsense that went down with Vietnam, Iraq...or we can go into the surrogate crap of the Cold War.

See, you can do the same thing as others and then claim superiority to others. That's just stupid. Carry on.

 

Thank you for CONFIRMING that you CANNOT defend the atrocities of colonialism.

 

You have no context to your hate.
"Whites are bad."
"Bad, compared to what, or who"?
"Bad to my virtue signalling mind."

This is why people can rage about Palestinians, and ignore one million Muslims
in concentration camps in China. This is how people saw Apartheid to be a
great "injustice" and ignored those neighboring countries where many blacks
had fled from - to live in South Africa. This is how America is a 'racist' nation
when a black person is shot by a white policeman, and ignore the whites shot
by the same police or those nations where blacks are not allowed to be citizens.

Context is everything - and context is being honest with yourself.

 

The Maoris of New Zealand learned from the British of a little island called Chatham Island.
On this island were a primitive peoples, hunters and gatherers.
The Maoris hired a sailing ship, went to this island AND EXTERMINATED THESE PEOPLE.
When the British asked why they did this the Maoris replied, "It's in our culture."

 

My, but you do blow a lot of smoke and then run all over the place when faced with facts you can't dispute or refute, don't ya Pookie?

This latest collection of revisionist clap trap is a piss poor attempt by you to avoid conceding a point regarding your previous myopic BS about British crapping on the aboriginals in what later became Australia. You need to grow up and deal, because I don't think they're paying you enough to spew this alt-right/white supremacist guff. But if it keeps you off the streets, I've got no problem humiliating you. Carry on.

 

Note, dear readers, that Pookie is a classic case of a wanna be David Duke style propagandist...once faced with facts and logic they can't refute or disprove on one topic, they just change the subject while accusing anyone who logically and factually proves their errors and racism as racists themselves.

The chronology of the posts clearly exposes Pookie's pitiful attempts to promote the alt-right/white supremacist revisionism of history and current events. The chronology of the posts shows that I NEVER excused the problems of Zimbabwe, I just pointed out the one sided reasoning of the OP for it's causes. Folk like Pookie can't stand that, just like they can't deal with the FACTS of my last response here. Nope, best to just pile on the sheet wearing mantra listand whine "white folk are the victims/saviors ...Goebbels would be proud of Pookie....they both endorse/excuse the heinous actions of their own people while condemning others FOR DOING THE EXACT SAME THING. Sad, but not unexpected. So after demonstrating what Pookie is, I'll just him ramble alone as the pointed hood crowd just want a platform to bark.

 

Question - in claiming that white people behave/behaved badly, who are you comparing them to?

nb please don't say 'Compared to me, who wouldn't do this'

 

A lie, as no one but you "claimed" anything, as the chronology of the posts shows. You STILL DON'T HAVE THE INTELLECTUAL HONESTY/COURAGE TO ANSWER SIMPLE QUESTIONS OR DEAL WITH A SIMPLE TRUTH: explain to the reading audience how the warring nations internal to Africa and Asia justifies the imperialistic/colonialist attitudes of Europeans (no strangers to vicious empires) to Africa and Asia.

You can't endorse/excuse the heinous actions of their own people while condemning others FOR DOING THE EXACT SAME THING. That makes you, Pookie, a hypocrit.

Say goodnight, Gracie.

 

Why does it always have to be race with you? Why do you change what people have been saying to make everything an argument about race? Why do you continue to refuse to address the issues, instead making it all into an 'if you criticise 'white' people, then I have the right to criticise 'black' people' - always going off the subject of the thread and what has been written into a whites against blacks arguement. . You cannot look at reality. You are unable to answer posts because the only thing you want to shout about is the superiority of 'white people' .

 

Actually, the OP is a one sided view and the subsequent "supporters" would like to excuse history in order to promote an ideological agenda. I suggest you look at my exchanges with Poohbear to get a clue as to what's going on.

 

Anecdotal bovine excrement whataboutism EXPOSES the shallowness of your position.

 

Have we drifted too far off topic? I thought the point I was making was about white colonialism.
That's race isn't it? I mean, we aren't talking about black colonialism (ie Bantu migration) or
brown colonialism (ie Persian empires) or yellow colonialism (ie China right now in the South
China Sea.)
Many of those in the 1950's - 1980's who was 'against imperialism' were ardent Marxists - and
Marxist had an empire for which the sun never set, and took the lives of 100 - 150 million people.

It's a fact with whites, as opposed to black/brown/brindle colonialsm, that the more a nation is
colonized the more Western it is, the higher is its standard of living and the better health and
education outcomes it has.
And... ALL nations colonize. EVERY race/ethnic group/color of skin etc wants to expand its
borders and make its neighbors like itself. If this was the year 1 AD I would prefer to be in the
Roman Empire than among the warring tribes on the frontiers - for starters I would live longer.
Let's put empires, and white empires in particular, into context.

 

Yes, facts are a problem. Facts that provide context to arguments are absolute threats.