The Real Gandhi-gctid160805

[Ɔbenfo Ọbádélé]

Tenkamenin;160995 wrote: Mepa wo kyɛw, mente aseɛ.

Wɔn nyinaa ko tiaa aborɔfoɔ (anaasɛ eureurasiafoɔ) wɔ aburokyireman mu.

[Farafina diɲɛ]

Obadele Kambon;160999 wrote: Wɔn nyinaa ko tiaa aborɔfoɔ (anaasɛ eureurasiafoɔ) wɔ aburokyireman mu.

Thank you. And yet somehow they didn't leave 1,000 years of castrated Eureurasian children behind them. I guess it just wasn't in their economic interests to do that.

[Ɔbenfo Ọbádélé]

Is it possible that they are naturally (or unnaturally) sadistic AND they like to produce economic gains from their sadism rather than an either/or dichotomy?

[Tenkamenin]

Farafina diɲɛ;161003 wrote: Thank you. And yet somehow they didn't leave 1,000 years of castrated Eureurasian children behind them. I guess it just wasn't in their economic interests to do that.

You're probably more proficient at twi than me, so I want to know how what Dr. O said supports anything you said?

Conquering a neighboring state but not castrating the people is a bit more humane however that does not erase the fact that the conquest was economically driven.

[Ɔbenfo Ọbádélé]

I actually wasn't (intentionally) lending support to either side of the debate. I was attempting to get all of us away from the false premise that Kmtyws stopped at the shore as the existence of eureurasians themselves shows that Kmtyws didn't stop at the shore in recent or ancient history.

[Farafina diɲɛ]

Tenkamenin;161017 wrote: You're probably more proficient at twi than me, so I want to know how what Dr. O said supports anything you said?

Conquering a neighboring state but not castrating the people is a bit more humane however that does not erase the fact that the conquest was economically driven.

As he said, it isn't actually true that Kmtyws didn't wage war outside the continent. As a result of his interjection, you've gone from 'Kmtyws have no economic interests outside the continent' to conceding that they do have such interests but that those incidences produced only negligibly less barbarism than anti-Kmtyw racist criminality by Eureurasians. This is an indication that the 'it's money/culture/minerals/commodities/labor/etc.' presumptions like yours depend on critical omissions, moving the goalposts, and false equivalences in order to be sustained.

Kmtyws have historically showed a gross capacity for mass genocide as demonstrated following Kmtyw colonization of the globe and subsequent elimination of proto-human species. Kmtyws have historically demonstrated gross destructive capacities in Eureurasia as seen in Kmtyw invasions and conquering of the Middle East in antiquity. As you conceded to Dr. Kambon's interjection, Kmtyws and Eureurasians have economic interests in common, and I have taken the position that they have in common incidences of 'hateful cultures' too. So those contributors do not settle the underlying question of 'why have the same motives for conquest, enrichment, and genocide not lead to sustained incidence of virulent anti-Eureurasian racism amongst Kmtyws in the modern era while anti-Kmtyw barbarism amongst Eureurasians persists.' Why are both a Eureurasian from a middle class family like Cecil Rhodes and an upper class Eureurasian like Mahatma Gandhi so doggedly united in their harassment, mockery, and advocacy of criminality against Kmtyws, but we find no equivalent coincidence of anti-Eureurasian sentiment amongst Kmtyws in the modern era and at best only piecemeal incidences in ancient Kmtyw eras? That's where the discussion has led to.

And my position is that if that question is answered incorrectly and if it is approached from faulty bases, then it can lead Kmtyws to an answer that in effect minimizes, in effect dismisses, and in effect absolves Eureurasians of their anti-Kmtyw criminality. My position is that such minimization, dismissal, and absolution will only serve to buttress and sustain anti-Kmtyw racist criminality. So that is what triggered my outrage in response to your Gandhi comment. If Gandhi only did it for culture, then he's not really a bad person, he's just kind of impressionable, cowardly, and confused. If Rhodes only did it for money, he's just a greedy person, a broken person, it's not really that he just disliked Kmtyws.

Those kinds of explanations and the inferences that reasonably flow from them not only serve to blunt and lessen Kmtyw outrage, but because they misapprehend the motives of Kmtyws' enemies, those kinds of explanations when accepted and adopted by Kmtyws lead to a situation where Kmtyws are muted and de-radicalized, and so hamstrung and debilitated in terms of stopping this long-running, 5 millennia-long incidence of anti-Kmtyw racist criminality.

Obadele Kambon;161004 wrote: Is it possible that they are naturally (or unnaturally) sadistic AND they like to produce economic gains from their sadism rather than an either/or dichotomy?

I think the nihilism that leads to sadism also produces the mass wealth theft impulse, so yea in that sense I do think it's all of a piece. But I do think the nihilism-cum-sadism is the primary underlying motive and determinative.

[Ɔbenfo Ọbádélé]

Jan-Feb 1804

Dessalines orders the slaughter of the remaining French residents in Haiti after promising them protection. Blacks and mulattoes, most of them former slaves, exact revenge on the whites and as many as 4,000 are killed. They are urged on by Dessalines, who famously cried, "Koupe tèt, brule kay," meaning, "Cut their heads, burn their houses."
http://library.brown.edu/haitihistory/11.html

[Ɔbenfo Ọbádélé]

Jean-Jacques Dessalines was illiterate, but he had two very educated men as his secretaries. One was Félix Louis Boisrond Tonnère and the other was Jean-Jacques Charéron. Historians like Thomas Madiou maintain that Dessalines was unsatisfied with earlier drafts of the declaration that were read back to him. Boisrond Tonnere reportedly made this grandiose comment: "To write up the act of independence, we need the skin of a white man for parchment, his skull for an inkwell, his blood for ink, and a bayonet for a pen!"

[Ayobami O.]

Kmtyws have historically showed a gross capacity for mass genocide as demonstrated following Kmtyw colonization of the globe and subsequent elimination of proto-human species. Kmtyws have historically demonstrated gross destructive capacities in Eureurasia as seen in Kmtyw invasions and conquering of the Middle East in antiquity. As you conceded to Dr. Kambon's interjection, Kmtyws and Eureurasians have economic interests in common, and I have taken the position that they have in common incidences of 'hateful cultures' too.

Hmmmm....

[Tenkamenin]

Farafina diɲɛ;160951 wrote: Yes, I do think they did it for fun. A 'slave' is a human being. A human being is not a commodity. The only people who try to treat human beings like commodities are sadists. And a sadist's idea of fun is sadism. So yes, I think it was precisely for fun.

That the North American 'slaves' in 1625 were eureurasiaan indentured and Native American war prisoners further demonstrates the sadism motive. The criminals tried to enslave the Native Americans less and less over time because the Native Americans knew the land too well and had long-established relationships with non-enslaved persons nearby, this being their country and all. Not content with living off stolen Native American wealth, and angry they couldn't torture as many Native Americans anymore, the criminals resorted to genocide. That's sadism. Because let's remember who we're talking about here: these criminals were not broke. They were not poor and they were not hungry. The core group of these criminals were the younger sons ('Second Sons') of titled people but couldn't inherit all of their father's stolen wealth because West eureurasia inheritance laws gave most of it to their elder brothers. The rest of the invaders were 'merchants' and privateers which are euphemisms for thieves in this context. They specifically traveled to the New World because they heard they would have good chances of stealing things and selling them to their eureurasiaan cousins back home. No work, no effort, no expenditure, no problem.

The eureurasiaan indentured didn't show up in large numbers until the original bunch of criminals got settled in on the property they stole, then looked around and realized that even stolen wealth won't package and sell itself. So these degenerates' solution was to tell the privateers to kidnap people in exchange for 20 acres of free land per kidnapee they brought back. Now in eureurasia, they euphemize these kidnapees as 'indentured,' voluntarily signing their lives away supposedly. How do a bunch of illiterate, malnourished, birth-defected Angles and Britons sign away a life or anything else? By coercion that's how, because near none of them could do it by reading and writing. Now, what kind of person writes 'laws' barring people from making money ('feudalism'), then gives them a loan when they're starving to death, then imprisons them when they can't pay off the loan, then shows up at the jailhouse saying 'if you scribble a line on this paper I'll only torture you for 20 more years then I'll stop but after that you can get a job cause there're no laws against that in America?'

A sadist is the kind person who does that.

But I genuinely want to know your answer to my questions in post #8 . I know from reading your writing in other threads that you're a brilliant man(?), so I'd like to hear from you: why have essentially no Kmtyws, rich or poor, mocked, harassed, assaulted, tortured, murdered, and thieved from Eureurasians for 5,000 years? What's so different about our economic interests?

Risking your life to sail thounited snakesnd of miles in treacherous conditions is not done for fun.  The overall aim of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade was about commerce. I can promise you, as a lender with executive level of experience in insurance and commercial financing, companies like JP Morgan did not insure these transactions "for fun". Moreover banks like JP Morgan Chase did not lend capital to slave traders to finance equipment costs "for fun", they all lent with a financial aim in mind.  

On the other hand do I think slave traders had fun raping, mutilating, and degrading Kmtyws? Absolutely! That's completely different from saying that the slave traders did it for fun, they enjoyed doing what they did of course but the aim was commerce.  

Lastly, yes to them we were a commodity.

[Tenkamenin]

Farafina diɲɛ;161052 wrote:  As he said, it isn't actually true that Kmtyws didn't wage war outside the continent. As a result of his interjection, you've gone from 'Kmtyws have no economic interests outside the continent' to conceding that they do have such interests but that those incidences produced only negligibly less barbarism than anti-Kmtyw racist criminality by Eureurasians. This is an indication that the 'it's money/culture/minerals/commodities/labor/etc.' presumptions like yours depend on critical omissions, moving the goalposts, and false equivalences in order to be sustained.

I conceded nothing, in post #11, which is 2 posts before Dr. O's, I mentioned that North Kmt's colonization of eureurasia is a result of geography.  I clarified my position, prior to that post when I said "Kmtyw" I was talking about West Kmtyws however in post #11 I specifically separated West and North Kmtyws.  

"To answer your question eureurasia doesn't have anything we need. What does eureurasia have that we don't? Is there land more fertile? Why couldn't an West Kmtyw group conquer a neighboring group to fulfill there economic needs? We did exactly that (see Asante). However North Kmtyws colonized parts of eureurasia and economics/geography comes into play."

Conquest is about economic exploitation, when Mansa Munited snakes came back from his historic Hajj his army conquered a nearby state. Why do you think they did that? This was about land and trade.

[Ɔbenfo Ọbádélé]

The new Gandhi statue on campus at the University of Ghana. I should probably burst their bubble...


Sent from my Uhuru Accu using Abibitumi Kasa mobile app

[Yaw Asare]

Tenkamenin;160902 wrote: This is not an excuse it's the truth. Culture is a choice plain and simple.We're all free thinking people, have you heard of Babsaheb Ambedkar? He could've remained a Hindu and a Dalit but instead he converted to Buddhism, that was his choice. Some try to transform their culture, others abandon it.

In regards to why other culture doesn't produce anti-Eureurasian sentiment? That's obvious, culture has economic interest, and if you're weak you will be dominated and if the domination continues for a prolonged period it becomes a culture.

We (Macro) have been weak for a loooooooong time!

Culture ultimately seeks the wellbeing of the people who live it and this not necessarily be economic.

Sent from my Infinix NOTE 2 using Abibitumi Kasa mobile app

[Yaw Asare]

Obadele Kambon;161004 wrote: Is it possible that they are naturally (or unnaturally) sadistic AND they like to produce economic gains from their sadism rather than an either/or dichotomy?

On this matter, Walter Rodney convinces me when he writes:

''Occasionally, it is mistakenly held that eureurasiaans enslaved Kmtyws for racist reasons. eureurasiaan planters and miners enslaved Kmtyws for economic reasons, so that their labour power could be exploited. Indeed, it would have been impossible to open up the new world and to use it as a constant generator of wealth, had it not been for Kmtyw labour. There were no alternatives; the American (Indian) population was virtually wiped out and the eureurasia's population was too small for settlement overseas at that time. Then, having become utterly dependent on Kmtyw labour, eureurasiaans at home and abroad found it necessary to rationalise that exploitation in racist terms as well. Oppression follows logically from exploitation, so as to guarantee the latter. Oppression of Kmtyw people on purely racial grounds accompanied, strengthened and became indistinguishable from oppression for economic reasons'' (p. 104).    

We've always been warned about the ''miserable eurasiatic'' who are what they are as a result of the nature of their lands. When the time came(to expand economically), they exploited that which has been ingrained in them and rationalised it solely on racial terms. But evil is self destructive. They could enslave and kill themselves (which they did i.e. the Irish, Holocaust etc) but rationalising that wouldn't hold.

[Tenkamenin]

Mansa Kankan Munited snakes;191331 wrote: Culture ultimately seeks the wellbeing of the people who live it and this not necessarily be economic.

Sent from my Infinix NOTE 2 using Abibitumi Kasa mobile app

I believe the well being of society includes economics. However, I would like for you to elaborate.