Topic: Racism is going nowhere
Anonymous A started this discussion 3 hours ago #135,944
I heard somebody on here say racism isn’t going anywhere. I think that’s close to correct, but it would be more correct to say it’s going nowhere.If you think about it, racism only works when you convince most people that a minority is inferior. But the majority can only oppress the minority because the minority is a minority and the majority is a majority, and a majority almost always wins against a minority. But the problem with white supremacy is birth rates.
White supremacy over blacks will be impossible in the future, it doesn’t matter if white countries kick out all the black people. At some point there will be so many more black people than white people that white countries won’t be able to defend themselves.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 3 hours ago, 6 minutes later[^] [v] #1,443,574
And you could say, well what if the US sanctions African countries. The issue is China exists and China has a similarly sized economy to the US. Asia accumulated enough wealth from trading with the west that now the world has two economic poles, so Africa won’t actually need to trade with the west in order to develop.
People will cope or whatever, but a century from now when Africa and Asia have about the same population, I wouldn’t be surprised if world power will revolve around Africa and Asia more than Europe and America. The rise of the right in the west is a reaction to this, but western governments are incapable of reversing this trend and all attempts at doing so will fail.
People will cope or whatever, but a century from now when Africa and Asia have about the same population, I wouldn’t be surprised if world power will revolve around Africa and Asia more than Europe and America. The rise of the right in the west is a reaction to this, but western governments are incapable of reversing this trend and all attempts at doing so will fail.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 3 hours ago, 4 minutes later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,443,575
It's a pretty goofy western idea to portray all racism as white vs black. People will literally discriminate and hate each other over anything. You could literally make up words like "ziggo" and "scrongle" and people still start identifying with those words and in 20 years the ziggos will be leading a holy race war against the scrongles. It's human to say "you not like me. me better. me no like you" and then that leads to killing but that's only one aspect of human nature
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 hours ago, 2 minutes later, 13 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,443,576
I think a good example of the future is South Africa. Sure, the whites used to rule the country with an iron fist, but there are more blacks than whites. The whites accumulated a lot of wealth during apartheid off the backs of blacks. Do the whites still have most of the wealth? Sure. But they don’t run shit. They can be as racist as they want and they can’t do anything about the black government ruling over them. That’s the future of Europe. Maybe they can be as racist as they want, create their own little insular community, kick all the blacks out. But Africa will be so much larger it just won’t matter a heck of a lot.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 3 hours ago, 1 minute later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,443,577
@1,443,575 (B)
Yes, this is true, I agree with that. But white vs black racism has done more harm to humanity than any other form of racism. The greatest injustice in the history of the world is that Africa has more people than Europe today but has less wealth than Europe. This will have to be corrected at some point. Corrections on the scale of continents can take a long time, but I don’t believe that an increasingly small minority will continue to have the vast majority of the wealth once they lose the ability to protect that wealth.
Yes, this is true, I agree with that. But white vs black racism has done more harm to humanity than any other form of racism. The greatest injustice in the history of the world is that Africa has more people than Europe today but has less wealth than Europe. This will have to be corrected at some point. Corrections on the scale of continents can take a long time, but I don’t believe that an increasingly small minority will continue to have the vast majority of the wealth once they lose the ability to protect that wealth.
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 3 hours ago, 4 minutes later, 19 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,443,578
Arguably World War Two helped to rebalance the world in that it made it impossible for European colonial powers to hold onto their territorial claims in Africa. And that allowed Africa to surpass Europe in population, which it should have done earlier in history during the Industrial Revolution which might have happened if Europe didn’t hold Africa back from technological progress by exploiting it for natural resources. But simply having more people isn’t enough, having a large population ensures territorial conquest is impossible because it makes the continent much harder to invade if it has twice as many people as Europe than in the past where it had half or a third as many people. But the quality of life of the people also matters. Africa won’t develop now because the birth rate is too high, but it is decreasing very slowly. In the 22nd century, population growth should stop at some point like it did in Europe and Asia. At that point when Africa has a much larger population than Europe, they should try to develop their economy to try and dominate. It was impossible in the past because they just never had enough people.
Anonymous B replied with this 3 hours ago, 7 minutes later, 26 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,443,579
@1,443,577 (A)
Europeans have undoubtedly done much harm to Africa but the issues with African prosperity go much deeper. It's a complex issue and a simple wealth transfer from Europeans to Africans won't quell political instability in Africa or reshape the geographic landscape to be more hospitable and fruitful.
Europeans have undoubtedly done much harm to Africa but the issues with African prosperity go much deeper. It's a complex issue and a simple wealth transfer from Europeans to Africans won't quell political instability in Africa or reshape the geographic landscape to be more hospitable and fruitful.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 hours ago, 2 minutes later, 29 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,443,580
@previous (B)
It might be a good thing Africa is politically unstable, that means their governments are subject to change. Europe didn’t conquer the world because Europeans weren’t fighting other Europeans. You get good at fighting by fighting.
It might be a good thing Africa is politically unstable, that means their governments are subject to change. Europe didn’t conquer the world because Europeans weren’t fighting other Europeans. You get good at fighting by fighting.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 hours ago, 2 minutes later, 31 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,443,581
I’m not saying that it will all be good, but given the fact that Africa is so diverse, given enough time, it’s highly unlikely that something won’t go right somewhere. I don’t know where, but Africa wasn’t always backwards and poor. Some of the greatest civilizations in history were African.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 hours ago, 4 minutes later, 36 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,443,582
@1,443,580 (A)
I can't imagine you'll build a prosperous society until peace is established. People don't tend to have time to think when bullets are flying. What's going on in the Sahel right now is probably your best bet for any kind of united Africa and it's facing many difficulties
I can't imagine you'll build a prosperous society until peace is established. People don't tend to have time to think when bullets are flying. What's going on in the Sahel right now is probably your best bet for any kind of united Africa and it's facing many difficulties
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 hours ago, 43 seconds later, 36 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,443,583
There’s also the issue that money is fiat, it’s backed by nothing. Maybe the money will get drained out of Africa into Europe. But does it matter if Europe doesn’t produce anything? If everything is made in China, all the resources come from Africa, and all Europe does is buy the stuff, then does Europe really have any physical power?
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 hours ago, 31 seconds later, 37 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,443,584
@1,443,582 (B)
Africa doesn’t have to be united, Europe wasn’t united. Even the EU is a confederation.
Africa doesn’t have to be united, Europe wasn’t united. Even the EU is a confederation.
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 2 hours ago, 1 minute later, 39 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,443,585
Europe became rich by colonizing the Americas, and then once they became rich they used that wealth to industrialize and colonize Africa, which made them even richer. After colonization ended the global economic system was so biased in their favor it just kept going, but the political unrest in Europe and the rise of the far right is due to the fact that European nations aren’t empires any longer and they’re going to face economic problems because of that, and they’re going to blame it on immigrants. But that won’t fix the problem.
Anonymous A (OP) quadruple-posted this 2 hours ago, 3 minutes later, 42 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,443,586
If the economic system is biased towards one group, it can only be overcome by a massive population. That’s why China, which was the largest country up until recently was able to overcome this bias towards Europe first and industrialize rapidly and compete directly. China, India, and Africa each have approximately 1.4 billion people, Africa is a little bit bigger. But the birth rates in China are the lowest, followed by India, followed by Africa (in increasing order), and if you look at their GDP, GDP growth is exponential so people don’t notice, but China developed first, India is going to develop next, and then Africa will develop last. China has the lowest birth rate and has the highest GDP, Africa had the highest birth rate and has the lowest GDP.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 2 hours ago, 1 minute later, 44 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,443,587
@1,443,584 (A)
Anon it sounds like you want Africa to just emulate Europe. The land is different, the cultures are different, the structure of their societies are different.
Anon it sounds like you want Africa to just emulate Europe. The land is different, the cultures are different, the structure of their societies are different.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 hours ago, 1 minute later, 46 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,443,588
Obviously Japan is sort of an exception, Japan developed before China due to investment from the United States, but they just didn’t have a population large enough to maintain the gains they made.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 hours ago, 1 minute later, 47 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,443,589
@1,443,587 (B)
Yes, the land is different, there’s much more of it. Africa was underpopulated for most of history due to tropical diseases like malaria, but now Africa has more people than Europe because our modern technology has allowed us to overcome that constraint so Africa’s population will grow into what the resources of their continent will support which will be about 3.8 billion people, which will be comparable to Asia at that point in time because of Asia’s low birth rates.
Yes, the land is different, there’s much more of it. Africa was underpopulated for most of history due to tropical diseases like malaria, but now Africa has more people than Europe because our modern technology has allowed us to overcome that constraint so Africa’s population will grow into what the resources of their continent will support which will be about 3.8 billion people, which will be comparable to Asia at that point in time because of Asia’s low birth rates.
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 2 hours ago, 3 minutes later, 51 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,443,590
Of course, people still die of diseases in Africa and that’s bad, obviously, but it’s not high enough to constrain their population growth far beneath what their resources can support anymore. And famine also still exists and that’s bad obviously, but compared to historical levels it’s decline dramatically.
Anonymous A (OP) quadruple-posted this 2 hours ago, 12 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,443,591
Obviously people will die in Africa, and people will die in Europe, and people will be born in Africa, and people will be born in Europe. And the deaths in Europe will mostly be from old age, and the deaths in Africa will be from other things, but there will be more deaths than births in Europe going forward and the opposite in Africa. So it’s possible for Africa to have worse conditions and improve and for Europe to have better conditions and get worse.
Anonymous A (OP) quintuple-posted this 2 hours ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,443,592
Like for example, the difference between the Russia Ukraine war and a civil war in Africa is the population in Russia and Ukraine won’t bounce back after the war is done because they’re not having children.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 hours ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,443,593
@1,443,589 (A)Africa lacks natural deep water harbors and it's fairly well known that it costs more to transport goods in africa than in europe in part due to the infrastructure just not being where it needs to be. A quick google search says "The transport costs in East Africa are on average still about 60% higher than in the US and Europe". There are many many hurdles Africa must overcome and the reality is many Africans would simply rather leave to more prosperous countries.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 hours ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,443,594
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 hours ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,443,595
To be fair when Europe colonized Africa, they built railroads, from the mines to the ocean to take what they stole back to Europe rather than connecting major cities but they wonder why Africans didn’t maintain the useless infrastructure Europeans built.
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 2 hours ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,443,596
If you look at maps of colonial railroad lines it’s kind of hilarious how they don’t even bother to connect anything useful.Anonymous B replied with this 2 hours ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,443,597
@1,443,594 (A)
I'm not sure what your point is with this post. These are real issues and they don't come close to scratching the surface of the issues faced in africa. Ultimately if you want Africa to succeed, you need to convince Africans that it can.
I'm not sure what your point is with this post. These are real issues and they don't come close to scratching the surface of the issues faced in africa. Ultimately if you want Africa to succeed, you need to convince Africans that it can.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 hours ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,443,598
@1,443,593 (B)
Since you didn’t specify what the map was I image searched it, it’s a map of net migration rates. I would like to point out that the net migration rate in most African countries on that map is 0, meaning people aren’t leaving or entering those countries for the most part. So I’m not sure that map really says what you think it does.
Since you didn’t specify what the map was I image searched it, it’s a map of net migration rates. I would like to point out that the net migration rate in most African countries on that map is 0, meaning people aren’t leaving or entering those countries for the most part. So I’m not sure that map really says what you think it does.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 hours ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,443,599
@1,443,597 (B)
My point is that just because Africa can’t afford to build something that’s necessary for Africa to develop doesn’t mean it won’t get built. All they need to do is convince investors that a railroad or port will be profitable.
My point is that just because Africa can’t afford to build something that’s necessary for Africa to develop doesn’t mean it won’t get built. All they need to do is convince investors that a railroad or port will be profitable.
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 2 hours ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,443,600
After staring at if for a while and thinking about it, the map seems imbalanced because there are more dark blue countries than bright red countries, which would imply more people are entering countries than leaving countries, which is impossible. The global net migration rate is 0 because everybody lives on Earth. I think what’s going on is it’s relative to the native population of each individual country, and the blue countries have smaller populations than the red countries. Which I think backs up my idea that immigration won’t affect the future of Africa, because Africa’s population is growing so rapidly, the amount of Africans entering Europe is a big deal for Europe, but the amount of Africans leaving Africa isn’t a big deal for Africa because Africa just has more people.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 hours ago, 22 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,443,601
@1,443,599 (A)
No they need to convince investors it'll not only be profitable but that it won't also be destroyed by islamic terrorists or during one of the endless military coups.
No they need to convince investors it'll not only be profitable but that it won't also be destroyed by islamic terrorists or during one of the endless military coups.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 hours ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,443,602
Which is also why Europe feels like Africans are flooding into their countries. Probably the same percentage of Africans as always are deciding to leave Africa it’s just there are more Africans now than in the past because Europe’s population growth didn’t keep up with Africa’s so it feels like Africans decided to flood in all of the sudden, when really Africa’s population just exploded and Africans aren’t acting any differently than they did in the past.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,443,603
@1,443,601 (B)
Islamic terrorists don’t really blow up ports that often. Sub Saharan Africa is mostly Christian, North Africa is mostly Muslim.
Islamic terrorists don’t really blow up ports that often. Sub Saharan Africa is mostly Christian, North Africa is mostly Muslim.
Anonymous B replied with this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,443,604
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 0 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,443,605
Like there is terrorism in Africa and it’s bad, and there are Muslims in Africa, but I think people don’t really appreciate the scale of the continent. All that bad stuff you read about in the news about Islamic terrorism is true and real, but most Africans don’t really experience that. It’s not just a thing that happens everywhere every day.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 hour ago, 40 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,443,606
Anonymous B replied with this 1 hour ago, 44 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,443,607
@1,443,600 (A)
You can literally just read the wikipedia page for more info on the specific numbers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_migration_rate
You can literally just read the wikipedia page for more info on the specific numbers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_migration_rate
Anonymous B double-posted this 1 hour ago, 49 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,443,608
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,443,609
@previous (B)
Yeah, the Sahel isn’t the whole continent. There’s more Islamic extremism in the Sahel because it’s the northernmost part of Sub Saharan Africa so it has the most Muslims. If China wants to build a railroad in Kenya, the Sahel doesn’t have anything to do with that.
Yeah, the Sahel isn’t the whole continent. There’s more Islamic extremism in the Sahel because it’s the northernmost part of Sub Saharan Africa so it has the most Muslims. If China wants to build a railroad in Kenya, the Sahel doesn’t have anything to do with that.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 hour ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,443,610
Tbh as racist as the Chinese are, they don’t seem to have any issue with sending tens of thousands of workers to Africa every year to build stuff. I don’t know why really, but for some reason the Chinese don’t seem like they’re afraid of going to Africa, or at least there’s a certain sector of their society that seems to be willing to get up and go to any random African country for some reason.
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 1 hour ago, 41 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,443,611
Honestly idk why I just know you can google it and it’s usually near 100,000.
Anonymous B replied with this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,443,612
@1,443,609 (A)
You keep mentioning China despite this thread being about Africa. I mean it's clear you only care about Africa as an example of positive Chinese foreign relations but I have to wonder why you'd bother with this thread instead of the typical "I LOVE CHINA SO GODDAMN MUCH" thread
You keep mentioning China despite this thread being about Africa. I mean it's clear you only care about Africa as an example of positive Chinese foreign relations but I have to wonder why you'd bother with this thread instead of the typical "I LOVE CHINA SO GODDAMN MUCH" thread
Meta joined in and replied with this 1 hour ago, 25 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,443,613
If Negroes are so great why do they always need help from white people?
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 1 hour ago, 15 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,443,614
@1,443,612 (B)
I haven’t said anything positive about the Chinese government so I’m not sure why that’s your takeaway. I’m just stating facts, the Chinese do build infrastructure in Africa. That’s just true regardless of if you like them or not.
I haven’t said anything positive about the Chinese government so I’m not sure why that’s your takeaway. I’m just stating facts, the Chinese do build infrastructure in Africa. That’s just true regardless of if you like them or not.
Anonymous D double-posted this 1 hour ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,443,615
It is a legitimate rebuttal to mention China if I’m making a counter argument against your suggestion that Africa is too dangerous for anyone to invest in infrastructure there. It’s silly to think that for a lot of reasons, and requires a massive amount of ignorance about the continent, but it’s more straightforward to just give a counter example of a country that’s invested in African infrastructure. It completely invalidates your argument if there’s a country that invested in infrastructure in Africa, because if they were afraid of doing it, then why are they doing it?
Anonymous B replied with this 58 minutes ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,443,616
@previous (D)
I haven't actually stated any formal argument other than Africa's woes being much more nuanced and complex than you've let on but either way I've grown tired of this circular conversation. Good day
I haven't actually stated any formal argument other than Africa's woes being much more nuanced and complex than you've let on but either way I've grown tired of this circular conversation. Good day
Anonymous D replied with this 58 minutes ago, 4 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,443,617
Even through a quick google search I found an example of an infrastructure project in the Sahel region that was built by China.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger%E2%80%93Benin_Oil_Pipeline
China built an oil pipeline going from Niger to Benin, construction was halted because of Covid, after that they resumed construction and opened it, then it got damaged by rebels, so it closed, then they fixed it, and now it’s open again. So clearly some countries are willing to build things in dangerous places and even if it gets damaged that’s not the end of the world because you can just fix it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger%E2%80%93Benin_Oil_Pipeline
China built an oil pipeline going from Niger to Benin, construction was halted because of Covid, after that they resumed construction and opened it, then it got damaged by rebels, so it closed, then they fixed it, and now it’s open again. So clearly some countries are willing to build things in dangerous places and even if it gets damaged that’s not the end of the world because you can just fix it.
Anonymous D double-posted this 58 minutes ago, 24 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,443,618
@1,443,616 (B)
It sounds more like you just want to believe that things will never get better just because.
It sounds more like you just want to believe that things will never get better just because.
Anonymous D triple-posted this 54 minutes ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,443,621
I guess my takeaway isn’t so much that the Chinese are good, I just don’t really understand their level of risk tolerance. Nigerians are afraid to go to northern Nigeria but somehow the Chinese are fine with building a pipeline through southern Niger near Islamic extremists in a country led by a military junta.
Anonymous D quadruple-posted this 48 minutes ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,443,624
Tbh that’s one thing about them, they’re not really big on the whole safety thing.