Science and other racist things

[Big RR]

[liberty]

What is insulting to blacks is the notion that whites went to Africa and kidnapped blacks into slavery

You'd best stop being the only person in the known universe to believe such a silly thing.

It was your scientificky Arabs what done it guvna.

Innit?

You don't seem to understand old man; that's not what I think; that's what liberals believe; it's liberal orthodoxy. That is what I've seen written by liberal posters, mostly black, but some whites on other sites. Even after you convince them through historical evidence that Africans sold slaves and whites did not kidnap them, they still claimed that slavery was the white man's fault. If the Europeans had not bought the slaves and transported them to America, they would have been killed, and there would be no blacks in this country today. Their black African conquerors would not allow them to live and be a threat in the future. Is that not the truth or are there some truths that are not acceptable by liberal orthodoxy.

[MajGenl.Meade]

You don't seem to understand old man; that's not what I think; that's what liberals believe; it's liberal orthodoxy. That is what I've seen written by liberal posters, mostly black, but some whites on other sites. Even after you convince them through historical evidence that Africans sold slaves and whites did not kidnap them, they still claimed that slavery was the white man's fault. If the Europeans had not bought the slaves and transported them to America, they would have been killed, and there would be no blacks in this country today. Their black African conquerors would not allow them to live and be a threat in the future. Is that not the truth or are there some truths that are not acceptable by liberal orthodoxy.

Only a truly ignorant person believes Europeans went to Africa and "rounded up" natives to become slaves. But you say that "blacks" and "liberals" believe such a thing. So you wrote what you think - blacks and liberals are ignorant, vs your superior intellect.

Be that as it is . . . "Dahomey was a highly militaristic society constantly organized for warfare; it engaged in wars and raids against neighboring nations and sold captives into the Atlantic slave trade in exchange for European goods such as rifles, gunpowder, fabrics, cowrie shells, tobacco, pipes, and alcohol" In fact, they attacked and captured the kingdom of Whydah with its coastal capital specifically to gain access to the Atlantic slave traders. Europeans them was.

It there part of "sold captives into the Atlantic slave trade in exchange for European goods" that you don't grasp? The desire and ability of Europeans to "purchase" African captives was the direct cause of the slave coast kings going out to capture as many more potential slaves as they could, not to mention attacking their neighbors more persistently (and failing ultimately). They were supplying a real (and disgusting) demand.

Please don't bother pointing out that the kings wanted slaves themselves and that sacrificing some was normal. Yes, that is true. They were nasty peple. But the demands of European traders directly created a market that the kings rushed to supply. Note that many Arab slavers also banked on the European need, bringing blacks to the coast to sell to the kings for the Europeans rather than to the north-east Med. and the interior.

The thrust of your argument is that Europeans aren't to blame because the captives would have been slaves or died anyway - in Africa. Even worse, is your suggestion that (retroactively) Europeans were on a mission of mercy - taking the blacks to the Americas so they weren't held as slaves in Dahomey (etc) or killed by the kings. And if not for those liberal slavers, why there would be no blacks in "the country" (meaning the USA). It's hard to avoid imagining you sighing with regret that the slavers were so kind.

This is a bankrupt and truly offensive argument on a par with "lucky slaves learned a skill on the plantations". All they had to was avoid dying aboard ship, survive the beatings, keep on working crops for free, have their families split apart, experience rape, torture, sickness and blows - and one or two of them may have been allowed by the slaver to use a saw or oil an engine. So that's all right then! Chattel slavery in the sugar plantations of the Indies and throughout the Americas was OK because a relative handful of slaves in Virginia learned cabinetry.



.

[rubato]

Of course "scientists" who worked within totalitarian regimes on the left or right clearly allowed the politics to alter both their observations and conclusions; clearly not all scientists are motivated by dispassionate objective observations and experimentation. This has been true throughout history, and continues to be true to this day. It's fairly easy to find such publications and theories, but there are many who hold fast to them--be it the genetic inferiority of certain races, to the cause(s) of certain diseases, to the effectiveness of vaccines... If it weren't for these "scientists",there would be a lot less bullshit on the internet.

Face it, it's easy to pretend that science is completely objective and that there are no disputes, but everyone is motivated by their own experiences and prejudices, etc., and this affects the theories and conclusions they reach. And, FWIW, because a lot of the underlying science is voluminous and difficult to learn, many non-scientists cannot accurately understand the questions, let alone the answers and conclusions.

Indeed, the distortion of opinion is not entirely due to politics, I have seen many feuds between prominent scientists in various research communities where sides are chosen and people work together to challenge the findings of another (often overly pompous) scientist. There is some benefit to the science because of this competition, but a lot of time and effort is wasted trying to sabotage each other. Conclusions are not made in a vacuum, but in the real world.

Lysenko is a chilling and hilarious example. Lysenko was a crackpot Soviet pseudo who rose to prominence by claiming Lamarkian evolution was true and he could multiply the productivity of food crops using this method. He claimed to show these theories were logically derived from Marxist theoriesStalin was and thus must be true. Marxism was the state religion and practiced with the orthodox zeal love of butchery that the Catholic
Church exercised. Stalin was enthralled and elevated Lysenko to the head of all Soviet biology where he held Soviet science back for 30 years.

The most hilarious was when Mao said if it is derived from Marxist dogma it must be true and commanded his scientists follow it. Both Chine and USSR enforced orthodoxy by killing dissidents. Mass starvation in both countries was the result.

“And yet it moves”

Yrs,
Rubato

[liberty]

Anytime a white man kills a black man, it is murder...no excuses. Said by some black leader, but can't remember who.

Using soldiers and killers as police, that should work out well.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ar ... a3a1&ei=74


Story by David Hughes •

Soldiers could fill in for armed police after scores of Metropolitan Police officers stood down from firearms duties following a murder charge against one of their colleagues.

Scotland Yard requested military support for counter-terrorism duties if armed officers are unavailable.

Home Secretary Suella Braverman has ordered a review of the situation, insisting officers “mustn’t fear ending up in the dock for carrying out their duties”.


More than 100 officers have reportedly handed in permits allowing them to carry weapons, prompting Scotland Yard to turn to the military for assistance.


The crisis has emerged after an unnamed officer was charged with murder over the shooting of unarmed Chris Kaba, 24, who was killed in September last year in Streatham Hill, south London.

A Met Police spokesman said: “The Ministry of Defence has agreed to a request to provide the Met with counter-terrorism support should it be needed.

“This is a contingency option that would only be used in specific circumstances and where an appropriate policing response was not available.

“Armed forces personnel will not be used in a routine policing capacity. We will keep the need for the support under constant review.”

The Ministry of Defence said: “We have accepted a Military Aid to the Civil Authorities (MACA) request from the Home Office to provide routine counter-terrorism contingency support to the Metropolitan Police, should it be needed.”

[BoSoxGal]

Chris Kaba killing:

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... rs-inquest

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ondon.html

When police officers fail to follow department rules about use of force, they must be held accountable - otherwise it is open season on citizens, they will kill with impunity if they are never charged and tried. If a jury doesn’t see guilt, they won’t convict. It’s rare enough that cops get tried, and even rarer convicted.

As to the coppers who are relinquishing their firearms cards in solidarity - fine. Lots of the bad apples are the ones who won’t call out bad acts and violations of departmental policy and civil rights when they see it. Those kind of coppers shouldn’t be carrying firearms, maybe. To take the position that cops should always be above the law, out of touch of charging and the review of the courts - that’s saying either that you think cops are perfect or that you think they should be able to make mistakes that destroy and end lives and never be held to account. That’s a scary attitude for such powerful public servants to have.

Would be nice if we could take the guns from the arrogant trigger happy cops in the USA, or better still if they all voluntarily gave up their 2A rights. Ha! Well a girl can dream . . .

[MajGenl.Meade]

Anytime a white man kills a black man, it is murder...no excuses.

Said by nobody. Ever