Who's A Better Farmer?
- Thread starter J.B
- Start date
J.B:
This does not refute my statement.
No. It means these farms are failing because ownership was ripped away from people who had the skills and experience to manage them properly.
Because Mugabe's policy was a racist one.
Intelligence and experience are two different things.
Look at the number of idiots who drive cars reasonably successfully, for example.
This does not refute my statement.
No. It means these farms are failing because ownership was ripped away from people who had the skills and experience to manage them properly.
Because Mugabe's policy was a racist one.
Intelligence and experience are two different things.
Look at the number of idiots who drive cars reasonably successfully, for example.
It's not even the racism that bothers me so much as the sheer stupidity. He didn't steal from whites to give to blacks; he stole from the rich to give to his cronies. Leaving the common citizens of his country (majority black) to starve.
He also forgot (Terry Pratchett's) first rule of thieving: if you kill your victim or chase him away, you won't be able to rob them again later. But if you leave a merchant enough cash to make a new fortune, you can rob him when he next passes by.
Similar problem to overfishing. Instead of grabbing the land, he could've just taxed the whites and used the money to buy and redistribute parts of it. While getting the experienced farmers to mentor the new owners in the art of agriculture.
Instead, we now have tons of illegal immigrants flooding from Zimbabwe into South Africa. Immigration services deport a few hundred a day, and that's just a fraction. I almost think our government should annex Zim as another province - at least the Zimbabweans would gain proper South African citizenship. And their opposition party would make a good couterweight to the ANC...
HHMM, so on the basis of a news report JB claims that people with darker skin are less intelligent than people with pinkish skin.
Thats not allowing for education, ability, experience etc. So, there is no case to be made.
I suggest an experiment- We take a few hundred BNP supporters from Oldham, or other inner city areas, and drop them on a farm in Zimbabwe, without any training or advisers.
Would you like to go along and observe, JB?
Thats not allowing for education, ability, experience etc. So, there is no case to be made.
I suggest an experiment- We take a few hundred BNP supporters from Oldham, or other inner city areas, and drop them on a farm in Zimbabwe, without any training or advisers.
Would you like to go along and observe, JB?
dixonmassey
Valued Senior Member
I wonder how have whites come to own 70% of the agricultural lands? Lemme guess, if western side have acquired a piece of something that means that history must stop. That's it, no expropriations of the expropriated (since whites own it) anymore until sun shines. Whites owning 70% of the land to grow cashcrops for exports, while aborigenes don't have the luxury to own land and farm is not just. There are things greater than property rights.
It's just that generally, James R. doesn't hold blacks accountable for anything. If they are underachieved in something good like education or intellectual achievement, or if they are overachieved in something bad like violent crime, it's not because of blacks; it's because of something else--usually the influence of whites. It just makes James R. come off as believing blacks are powerless.
Anyway, I think that's what J.B meant.
To expound, one answer to this question
We generally don't blame animals or plants for their actions, but humans are usually held accountable. They're also usually expected to help themselves if they are adults.
James seems to blame white people a lot, so it's not some strange far eastern philosophy he has where whatever will be will be and nothing can help what it is or what it does by extension, he just doesn't seem to believe minorities have any control of themselves. Like they are less than human.
He cares about the well being of minorities, very much so, but does he respect them as his equal?
All signs point to no.
would be "responsibility".
We generally don't blame animals or plants for their actions, but humans are usually held accountable. They're also usually expected to help themselves if they are adults.
James seems to blame white people a lot, so it's not some strange far eastern philosophy he has where whatever will be will be and nothing can help what it is or what it does by extension, he just doesn't seem to believe minorities have any control of themselves. Like they are less than human.
He cares about the well being of minorities, very much so, but does he respect them as his equal?
All signs point to no.
Hmm. Apparently Zimbabwe was better off under white minority rule, than under black majority rule. Who would have thunk it?
It just looks like that by comparison with JB, who holds "blacks" responsible for everything and nothing. HIgh crime rate? Must be the blacks. Low farming productivity? Must be the dumb blacks. And so on.
You'll note that James R hasnt suggested that "blacks" as a class are non human, are incapable of anything etc etc. The fact remains that racism is well documented in many situations, as well as, in cases like this, of putting non farmers in precarious positions in charge of farms they have no clue how to operate, its a bit like putting you in the space shuttle driving seat.
So, if JB actually shows willing to sensibly discuss issues relating to inheritability of intelligence, and the alleged connection to skin colour, then I'm sure James will be ready and waiting. But i'm not holding my breath.
If blacks, for example, are equal to whites in every way, what accounts for their poverty, criminality, and dissipation? Since any theory of racial differences has been outlawed, the only possible explanation for black failure is white racism. And since blacks are markedly poor, crime-prone, and dissipated, America must be racked with pervasive racism. Nothing else could be keeping them in such an abject state.
All public discourse on race today is locked into this rigid logic. Any explanation for black failure that does not depend on white wickedness threatens to veer off into the forbidden territory of racial differences. Thus, even if today's whites can find in their hearts no desire to oppress blacks, yesterday's whites must have oppressed them. If whites do not consciously oppress blacks, they must oppress them unconsciously. If no obviously racist individuals can be identified, then societal institutions must be racist. Or, since blacks are failing so terribly in America, there simply must be millions of white people we do not know about, who are working day and night to keep blacks in misery. The dogma of racial equality leaves no room for an explanation of black failure that is not, in some fashion, an indictment of white people.
The logical consequences of this are clear. Since we are required to believe that the only explanation for non-white failure is white racism, every time a non-white is poor, commits a crime, goes on welfare, or takes drugs, white society stands accused of yet another act of racism. All failure or misbehavior by non-whites is standing proof that white society is riddled with hatred and bigotry. For precisely so long as non-whites fail to succeed in life at exactly the same level as whites, whites will be, by definition, thwarting and oppressing them. This obligatory pattern of thinking leads to strange conclusions. First of all, racism is a sin that is thought to be committed almost exclusively by white people. Indeed, a black congressman from Chicago, Gus Savage, and Coleman Young, the black mayor of Detroit, have argued that only white people can be racist. Likewise, in 1987, the affirmative action officer of the State Insurance Fund of New York issued a company pamphlet in which she explained that all whites are racist and that only whites can be racist. How else could the plight of blacks be explained without flirting with the possibility of racial inequality?
http://www.planetpapers.com/Assets/3874.php
All public discourse on race today is locked into this rigid logic. Any explanation for black failure that does not depend on white wickedness threatens to veer off into the forbidden territory of racial differences. Thus, even if today's whites can find in their hearts no desire to oppress blacks, yesterday's whites must have oppressed them. If whites do not consciously oppress blacks, they must oppress them unconsciously. If no obviously racist individuals can be identified, then societal institutions must be racist. Or, since blacks are failing so terribly in America, there simply must be millions of white people we do not know about, who are working day and night to keep blacks in misery. The dogma of racial equality leaves no room for an explanation of black failure that is not, in some fashion, an indictment of white people.
The logical consequences of this are clear. Since we are required to believe that the only explanation for non-white failure is white racism, every time a non-white is poor, commits a crime, goes on welfare, or takes drugs, white society stands accused of yet another act of racism. All failure or misbehavior by non-whites is standing proof that white society is riddled with hatred and bigotry. For precisely so long as non-whites fail to succeed in life at exactly the same level as whites, whites will be, by definition, thwarting and oppressing them. This obligatory pattern of thinking leads to strange conclusions. First of all, racism is a sin that is thought to be committed almost exclusively by white people. Indeed, a black congressman from Chicago, Gus Savage, and Coleman Young, the black mayor of Detroit, have argued that only white people can be racist. Likewise, in 1987, the affirmative action officer of the State Insurance Fund of New York issued a company pamphlet in which she explained that all whites are racist and that only whites can be racist. How else could the plight of blacks be explained without flirting with the possibility of racial inequality?
http://www.planetpapers.com/Assets/3874.php
francois:
Your error is that you lump all "blacks" into a single category, as if they are all the same and not individuals. I do not do that. Black people are individuals, just like white people. There are high achieving black people and underachieving black people. There are kind, generous black people and mean, vindictive black people - just like white people.
Black people are accountable to the same extent white people are accountable. Where you go wrong is in assuming that skin colour is more important than environment and social matters in a person's life outcomes.
Dr Lou Natic:
White people are largely responsible for the current economic and social circumstances that many black Americans find themselves in today.
Your general claim about control doesn't really require a reply. I have said nothing of the kind.
What signs?
J.B:
You need to go away and think. First, decide what you mean by "equal". Equal economic power? Equal social power? Equal political power? Equal in rights before the law? Next, think about how poverty arises, what causes criminality (hint: it isn't skin colour) and so on.
You, like francois, assume that all blacks can be neatly compartmentalised together. That is far from true. Many black people succeed, not fail.
Parts of it certainly are. You presumably live in one of those parts.
Do you deny that white people oppressed black people in the United States?
No problem there. Go out in the street and you'll soon find 12 racist individuals.
What makes you think they are failing? What do you define as success?
Statements like this suggest to me that you don't have any concept of what racism is. You can't recognise it when you see it - especially in yourself.
Your error is that you lump all "blacks" into a single category, as if they are all the same and not individuals. I do not do that. Black people are individuals, just like white people. There are high achieving black people and underachieving black people. There are kind, generous black people and mean, vindictive black people - just like white people.
Black people are accountable to the same extent white people are accountable. Where you go wrong is in assuming that skin colour is more important than environment and social matters in a person's life outcomes.
Dr Lou Natic:
White people are largely responsible for the current economic and social circumstances that many black Americans find themselves in today.
Your general claim about control doesn't really require a reply. I have said nothing of the kind.
What signs?
J.B:
You need to go away and think. First, decide what you mean by "equal". Equal economic power? Equal social power? Equal political power? Equal in rights before the law? Next, think about how poverty arises, what causes criminality (hint: it isn't skin colour) and so on.
You, like francois, assume that all blacks can be neatly compartmentalised together. That is far from true. Many black people succeed, not fail.
Parts of it certainly are. You presumably live in one of those parts.
Do you deny that white people oppressed black people in the United States?
No problem there. Go out in the street and you'll soon find 12 racist individuals.
What makes you think they are failing? What do you define as success?
Statements like this suggest to me that you don't have any concept of what racism is. You can't recognise it when you see it - especially in yourself.
James R, this is how whacked out you are.
First You Say:
When it comes to finding people who are "responsible", now it is O.K to just lump all "whites" into a single category.
Also,
Why did you write "White People" and "black Americans"?
Why did you not refer to blacks as "People" too?
First You Say:
And Then You Say:
See how you are?
When it comes to finding people who are "responsible", now it is O.K to just lump all "whites" into a single category.
Also,
Why did you write "White People" and "black Americans"?
Why did you not refer to blacks as "People" too?
Last edited:
J.B:
Context is everything, J.B.
Note that this is not an all-inclusive statement. Read "white people" not as "ALL white people", but as "a particular sub-set of white people".
So that it was clear what I meant.
There are black people who are not Americans. I was being specific. See?
Context is everything, J.B.
JR said:
Note that this is not an all-inclusive statement. Read "white people" not as "ALL white people", but as "a particular sub-set of white people".
So that it was clear what I meant.
There are black people who are not Americans. I was being specific. See?
AND NEVER HAS ANYONE EVER SAID "ALL BLACK PEOPLE".
But you have many times said:
You show me anyone at anytime that said "all black people".