Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 months ago, 5 minutes later[^][v]#1,401,752
Imagine the president talking to a reporter and being like, "Yeah if any French, Vietnamese, or Japanese people come here, I’d be happy to teach them how to blow themselves up."
> It’s a little weird too since he kicked all the Asians out, schizophrenia is one hell of a mental disorder.
They were a market dominant minority like whites in Rhodesia, Croats in Yugoslavia, or Chinese in Indonesia. As usual, there were huge economic travails from expropriation and from driving out human capital in favor of unprepared locals who did nothing. Amin later regretted it.
DEI guy joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,401,762
@previous (B)
"Market dominant minority" is an odd way of saying parasite. I don’t think anybody in the world regrets the death of Rhodesia. May their soldiers burn in Hell.
DEI guy double-posted this 2 months ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,401,763
You know who else was a "market dominant minority" the Japanese in Korea, I don’t think the Koreans are thankful for that, nor should they ever be. Foreigners having a majority of the wealth in a country should never be tolerated by any nation.
> "Market dominant minority" is an odd way of saying parasite. I don’t think anybody in the world regrets the death of Rhodesia. May their soldiers burn in Hell.
Not necessarily. Indians, Lebanese, and others also fill this role. It often relates to cultural differences and differences in education. It gets really murky in some parts of Indonesia among different ethnic groups. Like the Madurese being killed by the Dayaks.
DEI guy joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 20 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,401,796
@previous (D)
Nothing against Indians, but the Rhodesians were evil. It’s not really impressive that non-Africans had more money or more education than Africans when Africans were denied education and denied human rights by people who weren’t even African in their own native countries. If I knocked down somebody’s door, took all their money, and kept them chained up in the corner for 10 years, then I let them go and asked why they’re a mess, that’s not really fair. Whenever people say Africans are less successful because of "cultural differences" I feel like it ignores the fact that Africans had their own culture and then had another alien culture imposed on them. When the United States defeated Japan, we gave Japan billions of dollars to rebuild their country. When the Europeans got done with looting Africa, they didn’t build anything, they didn’t write democratic constitutions and make sure African countries had free and fair elections, they just left and gave all the power to random crazy people who became dictators.
DEI guy double-posted this 2 months ago, 19 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,401,798
Although, India is a democracy. But even though, maybe it’s not people’s perception of things, India and the entire continent of Africa have about the same population, and Africa has a GDP of 2.8 trillion and India has a GDP of 3.9 trillion, so Africa is behind India, but it’s actually not really that far behind. The GDP of Africa in 2025 is the GDP of India in 2018. They’re only actually about a decade behind India and two decades behind China.
> Nothing against Indians, but the Rhodesians were evil. It’s not really impressive that non-Africans had more money or more education than Africans when Africans were denied education and denied human rights by people who weren’t even African in their own native countries. If I knocked down somebody’s door, took all their money, and kept them chained up in the corner for 10 years, then I let them go and asked why they’re a mess, that’s not really fair. Whenever people say Africans are less successful because of "cultural differences" I feel like it ignores the fact that Africans had their own culture and then had another alien culture imposed on them. When the United States defeated Japan, we gave Japan billions of dollars to rebuild their country. When the Europeans got done with looting Africa, they didn’t build anything, they didn’t write democratic constitutions and make sure African countries had free and fair elections, they just left and gave all the power to random crazy people who became dictators.
But that’s the genius of oppression. Crowd people, restrict movement, restrict education, then say they’re dumb and live in squalor. Create the conditions of failure then blame people for the failure and tell them to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and emulate those who privileged themselves and tilted the table in the first place.
DEI guy joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 4 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,401,931
@previous (F)
Ironically, Europe would probably actually be wealthier if they didn’t exploit Africa and Africa was as wealthy as Europe due to mutual gains from trade. So it’s actually a net negative for everyone.
DEI guy double-posted this 2 months ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,401,933
Apparently that’s where the term "the dismal science" came from. Because white people used to think that blacks should be enslaved because they’re inferior, but economic theory suggested that white people would be richer if they didn’t enslave black people, so some white guy who was pro slavery called economics a "dismal science."
DEI guy triple-posted this 2 months ago, 50 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,401,934
Then during the civil war, that actually turned out to be true, the north was richer and more industrialized because they didn’t have slavery so the north won.
DEI guy quadruple-posted this 2 months ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,401,935
…of course then white supremacists misrepresent that fact to try and say slavery wasn’t that bad, because they’re dumb and never get the point no matter how simple you make it.