>"I am apt to suspect the Negroes to be naturally inferior to the Whites. There scarcely ever was a civilized nation of that complexion, nor even any individual, eminent either in action or speculation. No ingenious manufactures amongst them, no arts, no sciences. On the other hand, the most rude and barbarous of the Whites, such as the ancient Germans, the present Tartars, have still something eminent about them, in their valour, form of government, or some other particular. Such a uniform and constant difference could not happen, in so many countries and ages, if nature had not made an original distinction between these breeds of men. Not to mention our colonies, there are Negro slaves dispersed all over Europe, of whom none ever discovered the symptoms of ingenuity; though low people, without education, will start up amongst us, and distinguish themselves in every profession. In Jamaica, indeed, they talk of one Negro as a man of parts and learning; but it is likely he is admired for slender accomplishments, like a parrot who speaks a few words plainly.
Is he right?
![[mwees monochromatically].png](https://i.imgur.com/ntfRYPC.png "[mwees monochromatically].png")
>>473872
>I
What did he mean by this?
based hume
>>473872
>The Negroes of Africa have not received any intelligence from Nature that rises above foolishness. Mr. Hume challenges anyone to suggest even one example of a negro who has displayed any talent. As he himself verifies, among the hundreds of thousands of blacks who have wandered far away from their homelands, even though many of them have been liberated, not one exists who has succeeded in anything great, either in the arts or the sciences or in any other noteworthy thing. On the contrary, among the whites, people continuously rise above the low point that they were and they evolve through their superior qualifications, attaining worldly fame. The difference therefore between the two races is an essential one: It appears to be equally big, both with regard to the capabilities of the mind, as well as to the color.
>>473872
>Tatars
>White
I'm curious about how blacks view the advanced civilizations of Europe/Asia. How do blacks/african-americans view other race's great civilizations? Envy? Dismissive? Appreciative? Neutral?
I can imagine that they would recall about Ancient Egyptians, but we can say that they were more "arabic" looking than blacks.
We can then move to Nubians who were the true black civilization. What happened? Why were there no other notable black civilization afterwards?
Typical retarded racism of the zeitgeist they were living in.
They probably had that impression because the only black man they actually met or saw, was indeed a beast of burden, chained to do the white man's bidding.
He is self-evidently wrong, as was that entire generation, which is ironic considering they were right about so many other things.
>>474028
this.
its not hard to look up examples of sophisticated black african civilization either
>>474028
As with almost everything. I don't think he was completely wrong.
Of course there are going to be incredibly intelligent black people, more intelligent than anyone you would meet in your life. But on average, they do seem to be less intelligent, the average African American IQ is 85, and they already have about 20-30% European admixture.
The bell curve of African IQs seems to just be skewed to the left a bit.
At the end of the day, you have to treat people as individuals though, and try to give everyone equal opportunities and be treated fairly. Averages and stereotypes only really work on the the population level, not when it comes to individuals.
Obviously no.
He wasn't even a historian on the subject of africa.
>>474028
>>474039
>presentism.png
If you have any respect for history, you should try to understand the world of the time and the topoc subject within context.
David Hume was working with the most advanced scientific/philosophical/biological knowledge of the time. In his time, he would have been viewed as a intellect, progressive, liberal and would have been well respected, received. His conclusions were completely rational given the information available to him. There is no misgivings in his conclusions/reasonings.
>>474011
>I'm curious about how blacks view the advanced civilizations of Europe/Asia
Black people generally respect Greek, French, Arabic, and Chinese civilization in my experience.
>How do blacks/african-americans view other race's great civilizations?
Cool, would LARP with
>Why were there no other notable black civilization afterwards?
There was, read a book
>>474053
Yes less disregard you know the tons of other things that play into this shit.
>>474075
What part of "They probably had that impression because they only black man they actually met or saw, was indeed a beast of burden, chained to do the white man's bidding" don't you understand faggot?
Expecting a group of people to excel in ANYTHING when they are literally less valuable than an ox, is a complete non sequitur, and I have not committed any fallacy by pointing that out.
>>474053
Yes less disregard you know the tons of other things like the mothers pregnancy, the child nutrition (malnutrition and even under nutrition is really damaging to growth) , their schooling, their upbringing and their governments ability to fund education that play into this shit.
>>474075
And Aristotle worked with what he had.
Doesn't make him less wrong.
FFS at that point in history there were almost no readily available primary sources on African history. Most were sitting in family libraries and the homes of chiefs.
>>474097
Aristotle was giving a state of the art knowledge/ethics to people his time. He was completely in the "right".
Philosophy majors don't just dismiss him right away and say "oh he's just an old WRONG guy with no understanding of modern ethics".
>"Since the dawn of history the Negro has owned the continent of Africa – rich beyond the dream of poet’s fancy, crunching acres of diamonds beneath his bare black feet and yet he never picked one up from the dust until a white man showed to him its glittering light.
>His land swarmed with powerful and docile animals, yet he never dreamed a harness, cart, or sled.
>A hunter by necessity, he never made an axe, spear, or arrowhead worth preserving beyond the moment of its use. He lived as an ox, content to graze for an hour.
>In a land of stone and timber he never sawed a foot of lumber, carved a block, or built a house save of broken sticks and mud.
>With league on league of ocean strand and miles of inland seas, for four thousand years he watched their surface ripple under the wind, heard the thunder of the surf on his beach, the howl of the storm over his head, gazed on the dim blue horizon calling him to worlds that lie beyond, and yet he never dreamed a sail.”
Racist ass cracka, he probably is religious & doesn't believe in evolution either.
>>474106
We're talking about history, not morals
>>474075
well no, David Hume was an individual, however intelligent, working within a system alongside men within said system, that held a certain bias about another group of people. while you're right about there being no misgivings in his opinion, it was not accurate. it was founded partially on ignorance, and inaccuracy is anathema to proper history. when faggots like OP don't show a "respect for history" by accepting bias without knowledge of the greater world, it becomes clear what people are actually considering
>>473872
>Not to mention our colonies, there are Negro slaves dispersed all over Europe, of whom none ever discovered the symptoms of ingenuity; though low people, without education, will start up amongst us, and distinguish themselves in every profession.
This is incorrect;
Angelo Soliman
Abram Petrovich Gannibal
Thomas Alexandre Dumas
Chevalier de Saint-Georges
Johannes new dictus Morus
Saint Benedict the Moor
I could go on, I've studied dozens of Africans of prominence in Europe. Really I can't see how someone could say such a thing and be seriously taken by contemporary people like OP who have much more access to information.
>>474116
Most of Africa were farmers or herders, hunting societies were rare and minimal.
>>474116
These words came from the book "The Clansman: An Historical Romance of the Ku Klux Klan" written in 1905 by Thomas F. Dixon Jr. It was the second book in a trilogy, preceded by "The Leopard's Spots" in 1902 and followed by "The Traitor" in 1907. "The Clansman" served as inspiration for the 1915 silent movie which glamorized the Ku Klux Klan, "The Birth of a Nation", directed by David Llewelyn Wark "D. W." Griffith.
You're a lying sack of shit
>"At this point we leave Africa, not to mention it again. For it is no historical part of the World; it has no movement or development to exhibit. Historical movements in it-that is in its northern part-belong to the Asiatic or European World. Carthage displayed there an important transitionary phase of civilization; but, as it is a Nahoenician colony, it belongs to Asia. Egypt will be considered in reference to the passage of the human mind from its Eastern to its Western phase, but it does not belong to the African Spirit. What we properly understand by Africa, is the Unhistorical, Undeveloped Spirit, still involved in the conditions of mere nature, and which had to be presented here only as on the threshold of the World's History."
[Hegel,The Philosophy of History, 99.]
>>474122
>Saint Benedict the Moor
>Moor
Moors weren't black
>>473872
>There scarcely ever was a civilized nation of that complexion, nor even any individual, eminent either in action or speculation. No ingenious manufactures amongst them, no arts, no sciences.
historically inaccurate. I wonder why whites went through such great lengths to push the 'africans were primitive hunter gatherer savages before we came there' meme throughout the 17th-21st century.
>>474136
>I wonder why whites went through such great lengths to push the 'africans were primitive hunter gatherer savages before we came there' meme throughout the 17th-21st century.
Because it justified being an imperialist coming to "civilize" them.
Even when you know you're doing something absurdly evil and psychopathic, you need to at least convince your ego that what you're doing is right.
>>474136
Justification largely. And ignorance.
I admit I didn't know anything about sub-saharan african history aside from the Zulu and Tarzan movies until I started reading more.
Kinda like how here in America all we see are poor brown mexican laborers so we assume all of Mexico is just desert pueblos.
>>474068
>lets build a kingdom on the slave trade!!
>afrocentrists will point to me in a few centuries and admire the fact that I conquered and sold into bondage entire rival tribes because they're fucking stupid
>>474131
He was the child of slaves, moor/niger where interchangeable
>>474136
Probably because they were ignorant of the majority of African history, and that anything other than the current European culture was considered uncivilised.
>>474164
Well, mostly gold and natron.
>>474118
I get what you're saying, but don't agree with it.
When you assume a negative of a historical person's position, then this destroys your own neutrality or impartiality. A neutral viewpoint would be to say Hume was not an ignorant person and not working within an inaccurate framework of his time and indeed the time period for hundred or so years after.
If we assume all historical person to have ignorant/incorrect views, then we must apply this same set of standard to ourselves as well when considering how the future would see us as. You/we would object to future historians calling us "ignorant and inaccurate" when we "know" that we're not "ignorant and inaccurate" about our views. For example, you may firmly believe aristotle was wrong. However, for whatever reason, in the future he was confirmed to be right, you would be considered in the ignorant/inaccurate. The point is, it serves no useful purpose to either intentionally mischaracterize a person or to put your own moral standard and apply to the person of the past.
If you were to write a history book without such personal beliefs clouding your statements, most people reading it currently would still come to the same conclusion. However the people reading 1000 year from now won't share your/our moral code, thus they would still get a very accurate view of who the aristotle person was.
>>474164
Mali was built on feudalism and the trade in gold as well as kola nuts, hausa leatherwork, ironwork, slaves, and animal parts.
Slaving became the big commodity after the middle ages with the decline of the saharan trade.
>afrocentrists
I don't believe non-black africans were ever black, nor do I think africa was the center of world history.
>I conquered and sold into bondage entire rival tribes because they're fucking stupid
I think you'd be more at home on /pol/ where you can rant about them damn, dirty nigras all you like without the pretense of enthusiasm for the days of yore
ITT
>hurr old people were wrong because they disagreed with me cause I'm self-evidently right of course
>look at these token African civilizations! See how advanced they were compared to the stone age tribals living all around them? This means something.
>>474192
>This means something.
It actually does /pol/-tard.
>>474189
Mr. M&M was describing the afrocentrists as stupid, not the tribes he enslaved, in case there's any misunderstanding on your part as to my grammatical structure.
>>474173
Any person who values wisdom should be well aware of the fact that we're likely wrong about everything we believe.
It was "known" that the pyramids were built by slaves.
It was "known" that miasma caused plague.
It was "known" that the aether existed.
It was "known" that the evil catholic church supressed science
It was "known" that the vikings were the greatest warriors of the dark ages
>>474194
Now compare them to the other world civilizations of history and you'll see they get maybe a C grade at most.
This is part of Hume's point, you're grabbing a couple token blacks and talking them up even though they really didn't do that much.
>>474210
All I know is I know nothing about all I know about nothing.
>>474211
Your standard of what constitutes civilization is most likely incredibly narrow, and needs to include massive technological and industrial capabilities, but also imperialism and dictatorship, for example the Roman Empire.
But of course, to someone with a pea-brain like you, it might not occur to you that people might be content with their "tribal civilization", and consider it a good life and system.
>>474211
>Now compare them to the other world civilizations of history and you'll see they get maybe a C grade at most.
not him but how are you grading them and who are you comparing them to, their contemporaries?
>>474192
>hurr old people were wrong because they disagreed with me cause I'm self-evidently right of course
Actually, we mean to say that they did not know as much as we know now.
>look at these token African civilizations!
Is that a bad thing? First you say there were none, now you're saying it's not good enough that the entire continent wasn't covered in them?
>See how advanced they were compared to the stone age tribals living all around them?
Most africans used iron and steel tools. And dividing history into the "three ages" is ridiculous outside of eurasia.
>This means something.
Yes, you're wrong.
Listen, I'd respect you more if you just admitted you hate fucking niggers and left it at that instead of pretending this is about anything else.
>>474229
>entire continent wasn't covered in them?
not him but wasnt africa also underpopulated for most of it's history? If so, doesnt that mean that were wouldnt be enough africans to cover the continent with african civilizations?
>>474211
How do you define this "grading" scale?
And why does it matter? You said there were no civilizations, now you say they all "sucked" when refuted.
>you're grabbing a couple token blacks
Except these are not "tokens" of anything.
Hunter gathering bushmen were the minority.
>>474233
Africa was pretty underpopulated, but the slave trade was the deathblow. Entire regions were depopulated.
Cattle diseases centuries later killed something like 90% of the Maasai people through starvation.
I don't get this idea people have of Africa being some kind of paradise.
>>474143
>Because it justified being an imperialist coming to "civilize" them.
The only justification force needs is to overcome opposing force.. Imperialism was never about 'civilizing' Negroes for the vast majority of Europeans. It was about extracting raw goods.
>Even when you know you're doing something absurdly evil and psychopathic, you need to at least convince your ego that what you're doing is right.
European colonization of Africa was neither absurdly evil or psychopathic, it was extremely rational and directly benefited the interests of the colonizing countries.
>>474173
I don't know why you bothered typing out that whole block of sophistry. The plain fact is that he was ignorant about developed african societies and nations. He can have his opinion, but the fact remains.
>>474249
This entire thread was intended to be an appeal to authority.
>>474223
>Your standard of what constitutes civilization is most likely incredibly narrow
and yours too vague.
>>474245
>Imperialism was never about 'civilizing' Negroes for the vast majority of Europeans.
It certainly was. The Brits propagandized all the time that what they were doing in India was being a "civilizing" influence, and even Karl Marx agreed that it was a "civilizing" influence.
>European colonization of Africa was neither absurdly evil or psychopathic, it was extremely rational and directly benefited the interests of the colonizing countries.
Really? In what sense was the arbitrary delineation of the Hutu and Tutsi ethnicities in Rwanda by the Belgians beneficial to the country? If you can recall, it eventually led to a genocide of almost a million people.
>"It will be seen that when we classify mankind by color, the only one of the primary races, given by this classification, which has not made a creative contribution to any one of our twenty-one civilizations is the Black Race."
—Dr. Arnold Toynbee, The Study of History, Vol. I, page 233. 1947.
>>474234
>You said there were no civilizations
>when refuted
I never said anything like that. I've literally had two posts itt you autist.
>>474226
>how are you grading them
I didn't really qualify the system and idgaf, but I guess we could take a blind swing somewhere in the ballpark of technological advancement, the settlement of new continents, longevity, etc.
>>474223
>pea-brain
>imperialism and dictatorship are inherently evil and bad fun
you dick slurping faggot, you call that a fucking insult?
I spit on your dog's grave you fat fucking mongoloid fairy munching wack rag.
Eat shit you pussy ass bitch nigger.
>>474245
>European colonization of Africa was neither absurdly evil or psychopathic
Mountains of chopped off hands is kinda evil
Committing genocide against resisting tribes is evil
>directly benefited the interests of the colonizing countries.
Giving the ruling class a half assed education so they could tell their kin to work faster as infrastructure intended solely to get resources out ASAP isn't nice
Only the eradication of human sacrifice can be considered good
ITT: Monkeyloving yankees BTFO
>>474273
Fuck off back to /pol/ you cumstain.
>>474263
>Hutu and Tutsi ethnicities
>arbitrary delineation
They existed independent of each other before they fell under the authority of King Leopold.
It's not like the difference came out of nowhere.
>The Rwandan Genocide was Belgium's fault
Belgium didn't force them to pick up machetes and slaughter their literal neighbors en masse.
I really really hate when liberals talk about blacks like they can't control their own actions, as if everything they ever do can in some way be tied to the whites.
It's really fucking racist and dehumanizing.
>>474093
The point of their alleged inferiority isn't that they were at the current time under that such burden, but that they found themselves burdened in that such way in the first place.
You are relying too much on the idea that history is random and that things occur the way they do arbitrarily.
This is false and a bias.
>>474249
Its not a fact. Its an opinion. Unless you consider your opinion to be the pinnacle of truth that will never change.
>>474293
>They existed independent of each other before they fell under the authority of King Leopold.
Not as a matter of power and a privileged position they didn't. It's pretty clear that the Belgians played a divide and conquer tactic in order to keep the peace and stay as the ruler, and when they left, the power vacuum allowed the Hutu to exert violence against the group which they perceived the Tutsi had had during the colonial era.
>I really really hate when liberals talk about blacks like they can't control their own actions, as if everything they ever do can in some way be tied to the whites.
I really hate that too, but in the context of colonialism, there is nobody else's fault than the people who conquered the continent, and those were white Europeans.
I'm sorry it triggers you, but if we were talking about black gangs in downtown Chicago shooting each other, I would agree with you, but right now we are actually talking about something that Europeans are responsible for.
>>474263
>It certainly was. The Brits propagandized all the time that what they were doing in India was being a "civilizing" influence
You misunderstand propaganda. London had no intent or care to 'civilize' India. They used 'civilizing' as a selling point to the loud and occasionally useful idiots. Colonization was always about raw material extraction.
>and even Karl Marx agreed that it was a "civilizing" influence.
Now, India may have become more 'civilized' with the British presence, but this was an entirely auxiliary and incidental influence - incidental being the key point. They parade 10 indians dressed up around London and take pictures of course.
>Really? In what sense was the arbitrary delineation of the Hutu and Tutsi ethnicities in Rwanda by the Belgians beneficial to the country? If you can recall, it eventually led to a genocide of almost a million people.
What 'country' are you speaking of? The 'country' of Rwanda did not exist when Europeans were colonizing Africa. The demarcation of the colonies in that area were not arbitrary at all, they were settled at the 1890 Brussels conference and the terms satisfied and benefited the colonial powers. Additionally, what does the genocide in Rwanda have to do with Europe?
>>474305
exert violence against the power which they perceived the Tutsi had had*
>As a rule, it will be found that a man is sociable just in the degree in which he is intellectually poor and generally vulgar. For one’s choice in this world does not go much beyond solitude on one side and vulgarity on the other. It is said that the most sociable of all people are the negroes; and they are at the bottom of the scale in intellect. I remember reading once in a French paper that the blacks in North America, whether free or enslaved, are fond of shutting themselves up in large numbers in the smallest space, because they cannot have too much of one another’s snub-nosed company.
>>474095
There have been adoption studies which control for all of these factors.
>>474276
>Mountains of chopped off hands is kinda evil
>Committing genocide against resisting tribes is evil
No it is not. Nothing about chopping off 'mountains of hands' or 'committing genocide against resisting tribes' is inherently evil, and furthermore I defy you to explain to me how it is.
>>474309
>Additionally, what does the genocide in Rwanda have to do with Europe?
I don't think the genocide would've happened if the Belgians never went there.
Similarly, I don't think there would be a civil war in Somalia if the Italians and the Brits went there.
I also don't think there would be a racist Apartheid state in South-Africa until the early 1990s if the Dutch never went there either.
>>474298
I think you need to step away from the computer for a while.
>>474116
Don't fall for it.
>>474305
>privileged
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_Hutu_and_Tutsi#Phenotype_and_Genotype_arguments
those group differences go deeper than just social standing
>>474321
>I don't think the genocide would've happened if the Belgians never went there.
>Similarly, I don't think there would be a civil war in Somalia if the Italians and the Brits went there.
>I also don't think there would be a racist Apartheid state in South-Africa until the early 1990s if the Dutch never went there either.
You misunderstood me. When I say 'What does the genocide of Rwanda (or X genocide in Africa) have to do with Europe?' I am politely saying that Europe has no need to care, and they don't, and their colonization was completely rational, and effective. After they left a bunch of people they didn't have control over decided to genocide themselves, so what? From the European point of view, colonization was rational and it worked. The Brits, Italians, Germans, Dutch, Spanish and Portuguese did very well for themselves because of colonization. Moralizing to nations is silly - Nations are rational actors, they do not appeal to morality or act on morality, they cloak their interests in morality. Moralizing about the decisions of nations only shows a naivete about the workings of nations. Saying 'European nation X did wrong because [insert moral reason]' only shows an ignorance about nation states. They are not moral.
Why didn't they just wipe out the goddamned niggers when they had the chance?
The Civilization franchise has seriously retarded layman understanding of cultural and technological evolution. I submit this thread as direct evidence.
>>474351
So what? Phenotypes and Genotypes are never what causes a genocide. It's almost always some conspiratorial racism or ethnic hatred, and in this instance it can be directly traced to the preference of the Belgians of one group over the other.
>>474320
Well, clearly you have no moral sense so any further discussion would be meaningless.
>>474359
Okay m8.
I get that you don't care about humans if they are not your immediate ethnic neighbor, or the citizen of your country, but I care.
>>474365
You are trying to deflect and you have no argument.
I do have a moral sense, you are simply confused because you did not think through your statement and now you can't back it up.
>>474368
>I care
no you don't
you'd actually do something about it if you did
>>474075
>i learned a historiographical term of art and it now comprises the full scope of my capacity to reason about the subject
"They were wrong" is not an example of presentism, just FYI.
>>474365
Different anon but what is ethical is not about how something makes you feel on a subjective level. It's beyond that.
You're calling the action of one culture or nation dominating the other 'unethical'. You're calling war unethical.
War is not unethical. War may be 'evil' in some completely descriptive, wishy-washy sense, but it is necessary and nothing intrinsically about it is wrong or unethical.
You are intellectually immature and not making a good case for yourself if you aren't white.
>>474368
See this >>474373
I do, personally, have a moral sense and code. I do, personally, care about humans. However, you are naive to think that nations - institutions and bureaucracies - do. This is why there is always a chorus of useful idiots that bemoan the evils of 'X' thing in power whenever some emotional event occurs. You bemoan because you fundamentally miss how power operates, and power lets you continue because this makes you useful. You are well meaning, but impotent at best and self defeating at worst. Saying 'Rwandan genocide bad' doesn't stop a genocide. It does nothing. In fact, it does less than nothing, because it clouds your judgement and makes it difficult for you to understand the actual causes and mechanisms that contribute to said genocide.
>>474375
Or maybe I do do something about it, and you're just projecting your own indifference onto everyone else.
Or maybe you're just another pathetic /pol/ fag who wants to rationalize his Social Darwinism.
I think both are pretty much on the money.
>>474320
>inherently
Um, OK, it was and remains contingently evil in every individual instantiation history relates or is likely ever to relate.
There: problem of inherence permanently neutralised. No need to ever bring it up again for the entire rest of your life. Don't thank me; pay it forward.
>>474243
Shifting goalposts.
Like the reasons afro Americans were bad at sports then it turned out they were good at it so the same reasons used to explain there incompetence in physical death it used to explain their prowess in many sports.
Or ethioboos that praise Habesha and bash the rest of Africa with the most concluded and contradictory reasoning.
I'm pondering whether to sleep first or post some positive quotes from early explorers to Africa
>>474388
Look man, no one on this board or in this thread is going to take you seriously if you devolve to spewing insults so bloody quickly.
He's making points that you're failing to properly respond to and everyone in this thread is here witnessing you lose any sort of argument you could have had.
There's nothing wrong with war, no less imperialism, no less colonialism. Imperialism and colonialism are both literally the most ethical forms of war. They're war where the war is completely sublimated. Asking for anymore is just asking to be let off the hook for the fact that you didn't as a culture get yourselves organised and to be give a second chance.
There are no second chances in the real world.
>>474382
>Saying 'Rwandan genocide bad' doesn't stop a genocide
It certainly does not, but I would've gladly volunteer to try to stop it if there even was an initiative to try to stop it when it happened, but we all know that the West is more interested in bombing sand niggers instead of actually using the power and privileged position we have to make current shitholes in the world less of a shithole, such as Africa.
But of course, you will probably say it's rational for the West to bomb the Middle-East and invade because it's oil there, regardless of the innate morality of doing such a thing, just as you argued that it was rational for the colonists to do the same.
But one shouldn't really expect much from a board full of Americans; a country that literally wouldn't exist without colonialism.
>>474388
You clearly aren't doing anything about it.
You're just a loser who needs to feel as if he is somehow morally superior to another person. It's truly pathetic.
>>474373
I wasn't the person you were replying to, but the parameters of what you consider acceptable are dependent on relational proportions in power; might is the only truth. Which in my opinion is fundamentally immoral, animal-consciousness level reasoning. Imperialist powers responded to tribal resistence in exactly the same way they viewed their resources; as things meant to be exploited. Profit overcame human empathy and african natives were put down brutally and in many cases, sadistically. The sacking of Benin was just a thinly veiled raiding of african wealth after the kingdom refused to acquiesce to foriegn trade demands. If this doesn't strike you as wrong morally, you have no moral sense, and by finding nothing wrong with these events, you implicitly comply with such things being done to you.
>>474407
>You're just a loser who needs to feel as if he is somehow morally superior to another person.
Awesome, awesome. Awesome.
>>474407
Sure sure. Whatever man.
>>474405
>regardless of the innate morality of doing such a thing
Again, first of all the significant thing to discuss is not morality but ethics, and second, there is nothing ethically wrong with war.
You asking for this type of world peace circumstance from the get-go is like an athlete saying he needs the gold medal before the race to properly motivate him to win.
>>474293
They heavily exaggerated it bro and the groups were much more fluid. I met a tutti who was super short and stocky and a Hutu that was tall and lean with a thin nose. As well as bastardising local indigenous rule and giving it all to Tutsi and identification cards because it was hard to tell the difference.
>>474392
Sorry m8, I'm a cultural relativist, evil does not exist inherently.
No need to thank me; pay it forward.
>>474398
Ethioboos here are so damn annoying. I got some dude being butthurt when I told him Ethiopia isn't that great and that we don't appreciate putting down the rest of Africa generally.
>>474418
That's why I said it was contingently evil, which differs sharply from being inherently evil.
You have my permission to thank me on this occasion. I deserve it.
>>474417
Also France trained Hutu forces before the genocide just as a small reminder that is off topic.
>>474415
There is certainly something ethically wrong with war if it's done for the wrong reasons, and I think spending trillions of dollars getting access to oil fields in the Middle-East, while watching a genocide in progress without doing anything is heinous, and a serious failure of priorities(especially given the supposed principles of the Western tradition).
>>474314
post more Schope
>Temples and churches, pagodas and mosques, in all countries and ages, in their splendor and spaciousness, testify to man's need for metaphysics, a need strong and ineradicable, which follows close on the physical. ... Sometimes it lets inself be satisfied with clumsy fables and fairy-tales. If only they are imprinted early enough, they are for man adequate explanations of his existence and supports for his morality. Consider the Koran, for example; this wretched book was sufficient to start a world-religion, to satisfy the metaphysical need of countless millions for twelve hundred years, to become the basis of their morality and of a remarkable contempt for death, and also to inspire them to bloody wars and the most extensive conquests. In this book we find the saddest and poorest form of theism. Much may be lost in translation, but I have not been able to discover in it one single idea of value.[17]
>>474419
Ethiopians remind me of the kid from school who wasn't liked by the popular kids but wasn't bullied either so he spent his time trying to kiss up to them and shit on the nerds who were nice to him in middle school
>>474410
>by finding nothing wrong with these events, you implicitly comply with such things being done to you.
I agree with everything else you posted, but I don't agree with, or understand this sentiment: Can you explain why a person implicitly complies with terrible things being done to them because they are apathetic, or even actively engaged in, terrible things? Many Europeans killed, raped and massacred natives Africans and lived wealthy opulent lifestyles.
I supposed the underlying question is "is it wrong to have no moral sense?" or, "are there negative outcomes for those with no moral sense?"
>>474423
is 'contingent' used differently in your discipline? because the way I know the word, my moral relativism extends to contingency as well.
Those things are neither inherently, nor, contingently evil.
>>474447
>Europeans killed, raped and massacred native Africans
sauce
>is it wrong to have no moral sense?" or, "are there negative outcomes for those with no moral sense?"
Well you're just arguing from practicality now. Which I get.
I still think morality is a thing though, and it's a thing independent of the whims of men.
>>474430
I'm curious, to which Western Tradition do you refer?
The same one which didn't find any ethical dilemma with imperialism and colonialism (and rightly so) and many of its own bouts of genocide?
The West does not seek to protect anybody but its own. You live in a fantasy land where 'but we're all humans' is the only deaf truth ringing in your ears.
War is just war. It has literally been the driving force of civilisation since the dawn of mankind. Yes there are such things as war crimes, but they are specific and exceptional.
Get out of your video game world wherein the default is not brutal and cold-blooded murder.
>>474450
What's the point of this post really?
To illustrate that the West is hypocritical? Yeah well, I fucking agree.
But it's high time we stop being hypocrites, and actually live up to the motto of the French Revolution instead of acting like it never happened.
>>474453
>Those things are neither inherently, nor, contingently evil.
By making a claim that they are categorically not contingently evil, you undermine the very relativism you claim to espouse.
You are, very clearly, discussing concepts you don't understand, using words whose meaning you don't know.
Why you doin' that, chief? Is it fun? It doesn't look it.
>>474456
You kind of seem like the one living in the fantasy land, m8, or at least just as much as him.
>>474459
No, to illustrate that the world is 'hypocritical', and therefore hypocritical in no true sense at all.
>But it's high time we stop being hypocrites
>You asking for this type of world peace circumstance from the get-go is like an athlete saying he needs the gold medal before the race to properly motivate him to win.
You are nothing but intellectually immature and naïve as well.
Even with a mountain of statistics, genetic and psychologal studies testifying to the truth of Hume's core statement of Negro inferiority, all accessible at a click of mouse, this debate still rages. Unbelievable
>>474454
>sauce
I should have prefaced that by saying 'for the sake of argument' or 'assuming' - I was just being lazy and didn't add it. It was a hypothetical.
>Well you're just arguing from practicality now. Which I get.
It's been my position for the thread.
>>474447
You don't understand what is unsustainable about psychopathic behavior and you say you have a moral sense?
>>474459
>live up to the motto of the French Revolution instead of acting like it never happened
but anon, it shouldn't have happened
it was an aberration, and destroyed those systems and institutions that separated and shielded the common man from the destructive power of the centralized authority desu.
>>474474
>psychopathic behaviour
>Was Isaac Newton a genius, or was he just some autistic nerd with too much free time on his hands? Find out more in this edition of Salon.
>>474466
What I am afraid of is not being true to my principles.
If that makes me naive or intellectually immature, so be it. I've been called worse, and I expect to be called worse.
Deal with it.
>>474475
Fuck off Moldbug.
>>474483
That doesn't make any relevant sense.
>>474485
No you don't have principles.
That's just the thing. That's why you're sperging out and becoming so triggered about it. You have emotions. Not mathematically reducible principles.
Read some Kant and grow up a little.
>>474461
>By making a claim that they are categorically not contingently evil, you undermine the very relativism you claim to espouse.
I never made a categorical claim.
The part of a thing that is inherent in a thing is, necessarily, an attribute of the thing and not categorical to a class of things.
I am beginning to think you are a sophist.
>>474496
>Not mathematically reducible principles.
Fucking stupidest shit I've ever read on 4chan.
>Read some Kant and grow up a little.
Holy shit faggot. You're calling me intellectually immature?
Jesus Christ fuck off back to whatever cave you came from.
>>474496
>You have emotions. Not mathematically reducible principles.
>Read some Kant and grow up a little.
Wow.
>>474496
>mathematically reducible principles
So you admit you're a brain-damaged autist who can't think past reductionist materialism into higher order abstractions?
Why has everyone in history hated the Jew?
>>474474
I don't understand how a person doing a thing you don't like means they are complicit in having that thing done to them.
What is psychopathic about this?
>>474495
Or the joke just went over your head because you're exactly the type of person I was making an example of.
>>474503
>Being so meagre of education to the point where that's honestly something which sounds ridiculous to you.
As I said. Do some actual reading and see that that is exactly what a categorical imperative is and why Kant is conceded as one of the greatest
philosophers in history on a consistent basis.
>>474510
Literally everything which is true is mathematically reducible. What is provable is a different story. What I'm communicating here is that categorical imperatives as set out by Kant do happen to be one of those mathematical truths which are provable.
>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-deontic/
could africa have developed the internet and 4chan?
>>474501
>I never made a categorical claim.
Well, you say that, but that's because you don't know what 'categorical' means.
>>474453
>Those things are neither inherently, nor, contingently evil.
See? If they are "neither inherently, nor, contingently evil" then they are never evil. That is a claim that those things are categorically not evil.
Given the very, very strong grounds that exist to doubt that you know what eg "inherently", "relative", "contingent" et al mean, I strongly suspect your next answer will involve further word-salad along the lines of "The part of a thing that is inherent in a thing is, necessarily, an attribute of the thing and not categorical to a class of things". The prospect is mildly amusing, but further engagement is only apt to shit up an already borderline thread, so I'll bid you adieu. Best of luck in your future endeavours pretending to be educated on the internet.
>>474523
>Literally everything which is true is mathematically reducible.
Godel, though?
>>474530
Reading the next sentence would have helped you not make this post.
>>474523
>Do some actual reading and see that that is exactly what a categorical imperative is and why Kant is conceded as one of the greatest philosophers in history on a consistent basis.
The categorical imperative is literally an autist's morality, and you clearly haven't read any criticisms against it.
Obeying rules has nothing to do with morality. Literally zero.
>>474520
If you have to ask, then I'm sorry. You're a mental infant.
>>473872
Does this guy look bland or cute to you?
>>474535
>The categorical imperative is literally an autist's morality, and you clearly haven't read any criticisms against it.
I've read thousands of criticisms against it in my time of which the distinction between them is twofold.
Either they fudge on the semantics of the categorical imperative or they fail to grasp it in any meaningful way at all.
I am almost convinced that you have no meaningful understanding of what it actually is. It has nothing to do with obedience.
Though it does have everything to do with rules, in the sense of logic, but only because those rules are derived sheerly from logic, because there is just literally nothing else.
It's not that one at that level derives ethics from the 'thing', but rather, one 'derives' of the thing and what results is just naturally ethics.
>>474532
I did read it. I don't see why it would preclude my pointing out that for any coherent system, there will exist true statements that are not well-formed theorems. That's a stronger matter than their simply not being provable (though it does entail that).
>>474541
He looks bored.
He needs a spicier wig, anyone have a saucy wig pic that we should photoshop onto?
>>474543
>Either they fudge on the semantics of the categorical imperative or they fail to grasp it in any meaningful way at all.
Or they argue that ethics have everything to do with the consequences of an action, or that ethics relates to a person's character.
You know, the other 2 competing schools of ethics called consequentialism and virtue ethics.
>>474548
In which case the deontologist explains that consequentialism is just precluded, in the sense of short sighted, incomplete form of deontology, and virtue ethics is just a narrative.
>>474550
>consequentialism is just precluded, in the sense of short sighted
That's cute, but not a serious criticism.
>>474547
Clown wig or sassy afro?
>>474527
>See? If they are "neither inherently, nor, contingently evil" then they are never evil. That is a claim that those things are categorically not evil.
Unfortunately you are incorrect, because 'inherently' and 'contingently' do not create a category. To put it another way, something can still be evil without being either of those two attributes.
Now, I am speaking from formal logic - also called 'categorical logic' , which I assume you are arguing from.
I also assume, given your empty rhetoric and personal elitism, that you are a sophist. Hello sophist. Goodbye my cultured gentlemen. Enjoy your sophistry.
>>474540
If you can not explain your position and instead rely on incredulity as a defense, you are a fool.
>>474561
>Unfortunately you are incorrect, because 'inherently' and 'contingently' do not create a category. To put it another way, something can still be evil without being either of those two attributes.
Oh, OK - hit me up with something that is evil, but is evil neither because it is inherently so nor contingently so. Do make sure it's congruent with moral relativism, too - mustn't forget that part.
>>474553
>describing something as cute in a discussion of this nature
Ways to know somebody is talking out their arse 101.
>not a serious criticism
Uh yes it is a serious criticism. A grave, fatal criticism from which the prospect of consequentialism fails to make any attempt at reconciliation.
In the sense that once you state that x is just an incomplete partition or iteration of theory y, it becomes mathematical, where that can be definitively proven.
It just so happens that, because the entire theoretical framework of deontology is already logically exhausted in a deontic logic of the second-order, and because consequentialism is insufficient for formalisation, this means deontology is just naturally given preeminence.
Welcome to the world of logic. Where no matter how many times you call it autistic, no matter how many times you turn away from it, it will still always be in front of you.
>>474581
Do you hold that there is no possible case where a consequentialist and a deontologist will disagree, given the same information?
>>474573
X is evil but is not known to be evil at a certain point. At this point it is evil but neither inherently evil nor contingently evil.
there you go.
>>474589
>X is evil but is not known to be evil at a certain point. At this point it is evil but neither inherently evil nor contingently evil.
This is gibberish.
>>474543
>I've read thousands of criticisms against it in my time of which the distinction between them is twofold.
BULL
SHIT
>>474581
Dude.
Listen closely to these words.
The essential nature of deontological ethics is the axiom that what is wrong/right relates to your obedience to a rule.
If you have a rule that says it is wrong to murder, it is ethical to follow that rule.
But it does not answer why it would not be ethical to follow a rule that says murder is good does it?
>>474588
Of course there will exist disagreement in some cases. This is due to the fact that consequentialism is an incomplete theory and will thus not be capable of processing some part of that information in a logically efficient way, leading to disparity in logical conclusion.
>>474593
let me explain - 'x' can stand in for whatever you want it to. I am not saying that the letter 'x' is anything - it is a substitute, a placeholder if you will.
>>474598
>Of course there will exist disagreement in some cases.
This is not possible if consequentialism is merely precluded deontology.
>>474589
what the fuck are you talking about?
>>474597
This is why I'm telling you to actually read Kant because it's clear from the way you're explaining it that your familiarity with the theory is limited to some brief overview in a first or second year university course.
It is not about 'rules' in the colloquial sense. The notion of a rule in Kantian parlance is a technical term, a logical entity, unrelated to the modern, everyday sense of the word.
The rule for murder to be wrong does not come into existence arbitrarily. What the categorical imperative is, and why it is as famous and renowned an item in philosophic inventory as it is, is a thing which normalises, perhaps close to the statistical sense of the term, the semantics of the content in question, and returns its deontological (self-annihilative) value, which Kant then philosophically puts forth as interchangeable with its ethical value. A facet of transcendental idealism is to say that deontology, in the logically bare sense of the term, is equivalent with ethics.
A rule which says that murder is right never comes into existence in the first place, because a rule which states that murder is wrong already contains within it its set of exceptions, as, logically, a rule is simply that which contains its own exception. In this way deontology properly subsumes consequentialism, hence consequentialism is just its bastardised form.
>>474599
No, let me explain: Your claim will reduce to a syllogism which is valid but not sound, eg:
1) If I have a completely pink unicorn which is also completely green, I am the supreme ruler of the universe.
2) I have a completely pink unicorn which is also completely green.
3) (1,2) I am the supreme ruler of the universe.
It's perfectly valid, but none of it is true. An implicit premise in your case is that a thing must be known to be evil in order to be inherently evil or to be contingently evil. This is false (in either case), thus any syllogism incorporating that premise is unsound.
>>474602
Allow for an arithmetic in which numbers divisible by 3 are absent from the set K.
Now concurrently allow for N (the natural numbers)
1+2 is not processable (provable) in K. But it is in N.
Disagreement is exactly what happens between theories of which one is simply a precluded form of the other.
>>474011
WE
>>474456
If colonialism was entirely justified and rational, why did they feel the need to both espouse the superiority of themselves, the inferiority of the negro and the civilizing nature of their mission, as well as put the blame on the negro whenever that particular aspect of it failed?
If there was nothing unethical about it, wouldn't all colonial writing simply have been "might is right, we're doing it because we can"?
>>473872
His statement is perfectly valid. Negros have yet to do achievments that are within the same level as Whites and Asians.
>>474615
The problem is that his concept of perfect duty does not exist in the real world.
If you tell me that I cannot universalize the concept of theft, because it would negate the concept of property, you are wrong, because property is simply whatever material item a human being claims belongs to them.
>>474631
WUZ
>>474637
KINGZ
>>474628
>allow for an analogy in which the respective analogues for the consequentialist and the deontologist do not have the same information
No.
>>474639
N SHIIET
>>474633
They didn't 'espouse' anything, that's just your own insecurity talking. Or the collective insecurity of afrocentric revisionists, I don't know.
You act like the people OP quoted all wrote what they wrote in some shivering insecure frenzy like they were desperately clinging to some idea about their own whiteness and its implicit superiority.
Reality is, they had literally no inkling of the possibility for any sort of negative connotation, as in what is read into it today, to emerge from its existence. They were simply on about their business writing what they saw in the world face to face.
Sorry to disappoint but the whole enraged /pol/lack thing came a bit after.
>>474211
What did you ever invent, faggot?
>m-muh ancestors
>>474654
> they didn't espouse anything
So racism and colonialism was never discursively justified? At all?
It was simply rational actors, doing rational things, that they never attempted to describe the reasoning of, because that reason was perfectly justified and self-evidential?
I'm just here to make sure that that is actually what you mean before I unload a fuckton of primary and secondary sources to show just how wrong that is.
>>474654
>You act like the people OP quoted all wrote what they wrote in some shivering insecure frenzy like they were desperately clinging to some idea about their own whiteness and its implicit superiority.
More like enjoying a comfortable but ignorant viewpoint,
What exactly is being referred to with the classification of negro?
>>474633
I did make this point that the basis for the ethicality of their actions is martial, but the reason why the undertone of righteousness even took place is because colonisation and imperialism were, at the time, highly progressive forms of war.
Basically rather than basically genociding them relentlessly, which was if you will remember the norm for all of prior recorded history, they expressed civility in the form of colonisation. And of course some degree of genocide took place but only ever as an exception to that rule.
People just stupidly forget that the absolute perfection of civilisation doesn't occur within the snap of the fingers and they become upset by the idea that, despite things happening a certain way, however which way they did occur relative to a given circumstance, that they didn't happen better.
That's called greed.
Recall that the construct of 'racism' and 'oppression' is a very modern thing which curiously only becomes discovered in highly cozy and warm and safe conditions. In other words, ones altogether detached from reality.
>>474645
The point about using arithmetic is that they do in fact have the same information. If K didn't have the same information as N, K would not be in the first place possible.
This is why we use maths to prove things. Just FYI.
>>474659
>the entire thread is talking about large groups of people
>some retard asks me what I have personally done as if it's relevant
I invented demo birding.
>>474691
>Basically rather than basically genociding them relentlessly, which was if you will remember the norm for all of prior recorded history
kek
>>474654
He's not making an appeal to their personal character as hysterical, he's saying that the extent and variety of justifications that existed for colonialism and racism seem created as if to dispel some intuitive guilt about it.
Saying "no inkling of possibility for any kind of negative connotation" is plainly false, ideas like abolitionism and racial equality would not have been unheard of to Schopenhauer. Arnold Toynbee lived in the 20th century. Anti-racism wasn't invented 10 years ago, you know.
>>474667
I'm sure there were plenty of tracts written giving explanation for some historical or otherwise edifying basis, but none of them were 'attempts' to 'justify'.
As I said. That's just your own insecurity talking trying to rewrite history.
>>474699
>The point about using arithmetic is that they do in fact have the same information.
K is unaware of numbers divisible by 3. This is equivalent to suggesting that certain conclusions derivable from deontology cannot be derived from consequentialism. And not of the trivial sort, eg "It is wrong on deontological grounds to..." (since the converse is also true in that case).
Simply put: your argument is a nonsense, as is every other argument you've presented ITT.
>>474691
> all war until the 17th century was essentially genoicide compared to colonialism.
No, just no. I don't know how you even got that idea. Colonial exploitation was far less civil than how the British treated the Scottish, for instance. An arguably also less civil than how they treated the Irish.
> the construct of racism is new
The definition of it may be new but the sentiment is nearly universal and certainly found in OP's post, for instance.
>>474680
But a point of view cannot be comfortable if it is ignorant.
>>474704
Yes I am aware that he was not saying that. That's exactly why I made the point that I did. Because what he was saying is just as ridiculous. Synecdoche.
>Saying "no inkling of possibility for any kind of negative connotation" is plainly false
Mainly referring to the Hume-Kant-Hegel tripartite, as they were the most significant three mentioned.
>>474710
> they were just explaining, they weren't justifying
I am not here to split hairs over such an idiotic set of definitions, if that, an personal insults, is all you have to give me I am out.
>>474701
Yes, and the thread is centered around a trivial premise you clearly have personal emotions invested in, attached to your own sense of self-worth and your image of others. Despite your frustrated reaction and insistence that I only focus on the most superficial layer of your claims, your support of OPs racism is not based on some genuine yearning for truth, but a microwavable form of existential value as a member of the "white diaspora" above them contemptible negroes. Identities are drawn, not given, and with racism you can drown your drop of individual uselessness in the gushing flood of muh heritage.
>>474740
>the things this person is saying are so outrageous to me I am going to let everyone know that they are outrageous, they are too outrageous for me to continue to deal with. Clearly, it is not that I have nothing to back up my claims, it is because the other persons claims are outrageous. The fact that I said they are outrageous, I hope, will serve as an end to the topic at hand.
>>474759
ur gay
>>474744
>Yes I am aware that he was not saying that. That's exactly why I made the point that I did. Because what he was saying is just as ridiculous.
>My opponent was being a retard so I emulated him
Good for you.
>>474744
I was personally never discussing this within the frame of Hume, Kant or Hegel individually, but European society as a whole.
Discussing whether they were being ethically wrong and individually racist isn't very interesting. But whether or not they fed into a racist discourse that inadvertedly justified (or "explained") colonialism is very interesting.
>>474667
Please show me your 'fuckton of primary and secondary sources' which will allow you to move goalposts when they don't mean what you think they mean.
>>474728
>K is unaware of numbers divisible by 3.
You're still not following me mate. It doesn't matter if K is locally 'unaware' of numbers divisible by 3. K is still a sequence containing only natural numbers. And N is simply the universe of that sequence, apart from its function.
N and K both have all of the same underlying information, K is simply effected through some function ƒ. This function doesn't change the fact that the universe of the function ƒ is still N.
This part of mathematics is not mutable, and therefore not precarious. That's literally why we do math.
>This is equivalent to suggesting that certain conclusions derivable from deontology cannot be derived from consequentialism. And not of the trivial sort, eg "It is wrong on deontological grounds to..."
Yeah, not of the trivial sort, of the significant sort. That's exactly why consequentialism is incomplete.
>>474732
I did not say that. I meant roughly from a period of 10,000 years wherein colonisation became technological as opposed to genocide. I never said that began with European colonisation of Africa.
>The definition of it may be new but the sentiment is nearly universal.
You're missing the point. That 'sentiment' is construed relative to sociocultural parameters. The very same sentiment back when was occurring was, for instance, commonly socioculturally transformed into civility, not 'racism'.
The concept of 'racism' as it stands today when speaking of colonialism is just a collapsed understanding, due to disassociation from context to the degree of inadequacy, of civilisation.
>>474732
And this is like I said, it's only from our comfy ivory towers of modern day life where our lives in the first world (even really in the third world these days) are scarcely in the same positions as they were back in the heydays of colonialism.
It's really just a completely different world and people who spout on about 'racism' really just don't even have the means to appreciate that.
To them the African tribe who was grateful for the 'White Man' to come and bring them Christianity was just 'racially oppressed' and 'imperialised'. But in all actually, they were truly grateful.
They didn't have smartphones. They had fuck all. Christianity to them was our smartphones and global and unfailing internet.
And of course people 500, probably even 50 years from now will speak of Apple as having 'X'ly 'Y'd us by 'imperialising' our minds through their sub-colonial devices. But right now, we're honest to God just grateful that we have this technology and anything beyond that is pretty obviously revisionist.
>>474781
>N and K both have all of the same underlying information
>>474628
>numbers divisible by 3 are absent from the set K
I understand you perfectly, mate. The problem is that you're talking absolute bollocks. Constant references to the fact that you are using mathematical terminology in your bollocks-talking will not change that fact.
>>474775
>But whether or not they fed into a racist discourse that inadvertedly justified (or "explained") colonialism is very interesting.
No it's actually not interesting it all. It's just you forcing historical revision where it really, honestly does not belong.
For the nth time. There was no 'justification'. Every time you try to play it off like that it reeks of insecurity. It's beginning to be unbecoming.
>>473872
>government
Mansa Musa
>civilized
Egypt
>no arts
San rock art
>>474788
Numbers divisible by 3 is the condition of the function in K. Yes. K is however still a sequence within N.
You're experiencing real difficulty in comprehending something so simple. I'm wondering what your background in maths is like.
Let me make it plain for you:
Certain numbers being absent in K does not modify the fact that K is a subset of N.
>>474782
> they were truly grateful
They were grateful for having their lands and resources stolen, their people sold into slavery or their hands cut off?
You're gonna have to give me a single source on that one. Just one. please. Because you are the first person I have ever met that would actively write that nonsense without being entirely obvious in his or her trolling.
>>474794
>exceptional cases being taken for the rule
Deeeeerrrropped.
>really mate you like christmas lad well let me tell you what lad I stubbed me fucken toe on crimbo lads how could you m8 how could you like such a nasty nasty holiday m8 you fukn wot
>>474794
Proof: Christianity (civilisation) in Africa
Ahem.
>>474793
>Certain numbers being absent in K does not modify the fact that K is a subset of N.
It precludes their having the same information.
No more replies, I've been too indulgent already. Hope you had fun.
>>474803
Nah that shit was social brainwashing. It also damaged local culture and was abused by colonial authority as a tool of control and abuse.
Also muslim Africa was cobaidered the more "civilized" if the two
>>474805
are you literally saying that subsets are precluded from having the same information as the sets they come from?
Come on now.
>>474779
honestly, I know how weak this sounds, but I know how this is gonna go: I will quote a bunch of authors with a decent amount of sources (Peter Fryer, Howard Zinn, etc.), you will call them communists and refuse to read any of it, and we will both have wasted our time.
>>474805
Yes don't reply anymore because you know you're wrong.
The source of information is not in the individual numbers, but in the class that the numbers constitute. This is how K can be lacking of certain numbers but still possess an isomorphic relation to N, informationally.
It's not 'what is involved', as in the bottom up, but 'what is it about' as in the top down.
>>474811
>Social brainwashing
There is no such thing as objective social brainwashing. This is the point I've been trying to convey to you subtly through this discussion. But now I need to spell it out for you. The idea of 'social brainwashing' is a subjective description of a toke for which the other side may very well be 'civilising a group'.
I mean listen to yourself, for reference:
>the government just socially brainwashes us to be afraid of drugs guys they're just mad that drugs expand your mind!
Look at the bigger picture is what I'm asking you, drugs may well 'expand one's mind', but they do so at the cost of destabilising the group in which those individuals who use them are in. And not just relative to their own 'oppressive' system, because governments or more generally society are really just a mirror of nature. In the sense that there is only one real way of doing things right.
In some completely descriptive, indignant, unreasonably bitter, narrow minded, subjective way, sure you can fabricate this narrative, as some sort of 'story' that there existed abuse of control. But really that's just not the bigger picture of what was honestly going on.
Colonialism wasn't some fucking disney movie where the big mean bad guys came and made everything wrong. Reality isn't a disney movie. We seem to have forgotten that in our comfort of modern times. This historical revision. It's bogus.
>>474839
It sounds pretty weak indeed after your confident boast.
>>474841
>mirror of nature. In the sense that there is only one real way of doing things right
>nature
>one real way of doing things right
>>474011
>how blacks view the advanced civilizations of Europe/Asia
"we wuz kingz n shiet until whitey stole our technology"
>>474850
>he doesn't know that the universe is bound by physical laws
>>474855
>nature
>doing things right
Or just doing things?
>>474861
>doing things a singular and specific way without fail to the point of poetic dumbness
Yep. You're done.
This is the best / worst thread /his/ has had yet.
>>474865
>doing things a singular and specific way
what are we talking about?
>>474865
Or are you interpreting what happens/what works, as being is equivalent to what's right?
>>474873
The laws of physics you sore loser.
>>474887
Do you have autism?
I'm not talking about rightness in a normative sense but in a prescriptive one.
>>474075
Based on what I know of the time the material he had available to him at the time also perpetuated the meme of monstrous humanoids in far off parts with torso faces and dog heads etc.
Which I am basing on the fact that Carl von Linne perpetuated this meme as well and lived around the same time.
>>473872
It's hard to disagree with him. 200 (?)+ years later and the most famous of negroid inventions is a man literally stepping on peanuts
>>474028
>He is self-evidently wrong,
No he wasn't. Sub-Saharan Africa didn't even have the wheel prior to colonialism. Let that sink in. Now go suck off stephen jay gould's decaying corpse you liberal pansy
>>474901
Literally the father of taxonomy and invented binomial nomenclature.
>Linnaeus added a second species to the genus Homo in Systema Naturae based on a figure and description by Jacobus Bontius from a 1658 publication: Homo troglodytes ("caveman")[151][152] and published a third in 1771: Homo lar.[153] Swedish historian Gunnar Broberg states that the new human species Linnaeus described were actually simians or native people clad in skins to frighten colonial settlers, whose appearance had been exaggerated in accounts to Linnaeus.[154]
>In early editions of Systema Naturae, many well-known legendary creatures were included such as the phoenix, dragon and manticore as well as cryptids like the satyrus,[155][note 9] which Linnaeus collected into the catch-all category Paradoxa. Broberg thought Linnaeus was trying to offer a natural explanation and demystify the world of superstition.[156] Linnaeus tried to debunk some of these creatures, as he had with the hydra; regarding the purported remains of dragons, Linnaeus wrote that they were either derived from lizards or rays.
Literally the most up to date information they had access to at the time.
>In Jamaica, indeed, they talk of one Negro as a man of parts and learning; but it is likely he is admired for slender accomplishments, like a parrot who speaks a few words plainly.
True. The same goes for women by the way.
>>474759
oh god the irony in this post
>>474918
>second from the left
So, that's where argentine sun came from?
>>474917
>Sub-Saharan Africa didn't even have the wheel prior to colonialism.
True, but it was the Sumerians who invented the wheel and they sure as hell weren't white.
>>474028
we wuz kingz n shiiet ey tyy-rone dis craka be sayin' we ain shit homie cmon we invented the fried chicken n shiiet
>>474639
U mean kangz
>>474028
The fact that they were enslaved in such a large number means they were inferior in the first place
>>474095
MO MONEY FO DEM PROGRAMZ
>>474987
They weren't black either. This hinges on iq which the Nigeroid Africans lacked to develop the wheel.
>Blatant racism and trolling will not be tolerated, and a high level of discourse is expected.
>Blatant racism and trolling will not be tolerated, and a high level of discourse is expected.
>Blatant racism and trolling will not be tolerated, and a high level of discourse is expected.
>Blatant racism and trolling will not be tolerated, and a high level of discourse is expected.
>Blatant racism and trolling will not be tolerated, and a high level of discourse is expected.
>Blatant racism and trolling will not be tolerated, and a high level of discourse is expected.
>Blatant racism and trolling will not be tolerated, and a high level of discourse is expected.
>Blatant racism and trolling will not be tolerated, and a high level of discourse is expected.
Why are butthurt liberals so emotionally invested in pretending that niggers and the rest of the world are 100% equal? You can give them all the evidence in the world and they'll still bitch and moan about racism.
How do you libs account for the fact that Africans literally didn't invent a written language or the wheel? Is that because of white people too?
This thread was moved to >>>/pol/59467739
