'Millions of Africans' will flood Europe unless it acts now, warns European chief, as Paris evacuates huge migrant camp

First topic message reminder :

Europe is "underestimating" the scale and severity of the migration crisis and "millions of Africans" will flood the continent in the next five years unless urgent action is taken, a senior European official has warned. The dire prediction from Antonio Tajani, president of the European Parliament, came as Paris evacuated almost 3,000 migrants sleeping rough from a makeshift camp near the city centre - the 34th such evacuation in two years. In an interview with Il Messagero newspaper, Mr Tajani said there would be an exodus "of biblical proportions that would be impossible to stop if we don't confront the problem now".


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/07/millions-africans-will-flood-europe-unless-acts-now-warns-european/

Original Quill wrote:

Victor wrote:Either we build walls and watch towers armed with 50 cal.

Have you guys still got the plans for Hadrian's Wall?



A lot cheaper than starting from scratch.  Ask Trump...you won't get the Mexicans to pay for it.

Has building started yet?

You look forward to welcoming African immigrants safe in the knowledge they won't get as far as the states. Also, what would you do with them? America's preferred option - prison - is unlikely, your prisons are full.

Thorin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:I said thought of and used over 2000 years ago...


Then you started banging on about the Romans starting to build the aqueducts, and about the uk...


I said i wasnt talking about the uk... and that aqueducts were being built nearly 2000 years before that...


But in all this time... Africans still havnt sorted out the basics...!


Why is that...?

Well there is a huge difference between 2,000 years and 4,000 years is there not Tommy?

The reality is here you tried to look smart and looked up google on this failing to understand I actually do know history without google, you muppet. Hence how i was so easily able to ridicule you.



Then you go on about basics in regards to a continent and not African nations, showing how again you know next to nothing on each nations infrastructure. 

Do you know what the funniest thing here is Tommy?

Is how further you prove my point. That you never knew any of this, without reading about this for yourself. That you yourself could not hope or even know how to build an aqueduct, without being taught. Where again this could only be possible. By a few innovative unselfish people passing on their wisdom.

Now you have failed to address so many of my points. Where you do as you always do and try poorly to avoid them. That is not going to happen here.

I only posted more here as it was hilarious to see you make a wally of yourself here mate  

Now go back and address my points, or you are done here.

Please feel free to have the last word if you must, but only if it actually counters my points, will you have a reply. Otherwise you are done here.

Enjoy and goodnight  

I said over 2000 years ago... 3500 years ago is over 2000 years ago...!

You clearly said that the romans started the building of aqueducts... which was wrong!

You have no points to address, and you have avoided answering mine!

Raggamuffin wrote:Anyway, what good will it do if they go and live in Europe? That's not going to help Africa is it?

Its certainly not going to help us...!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Thorin wrote:




Well there is a huge difference between 2,000 years and 4,000 years is there not Tommy?

The reality is here you tried to look smart and looked up google on this failing to understand I actually do know history without google, you muppet. Hence how i was so easily able to ridicule you.



Then you go on about basics in regards to a continent and not African nations, showing how again you know next to nothing on each nations infrastructure. 

Do you know what the funniest thing here is Tommy?

Is how further you prove my point. That you never knew any of this, without reading about this for yourself. That you yourself could not hope or even know how to build an aqueduct, without being taught. Where again this could only be possible. By a few innovative unselfish people passing on their wisdom.

Now you have failed to address so many of my points. Where you do as you always do and try poorly to avoid them. That is not going to happen here.

I only posted more here as it was hilarious to see you make a wally of yourself here mate  

Now go back and address my points, or you are done here.

Please feel free to have the last word if you must, but only if it actually counters my points, will you have a reply. Otherwise you are done here.

Enjoy and goodnight  

I said over 2000 years ago... 3500 years ago is over 2000 years ago...!

You clearly said that the romans started the building of aqueducts... which was wrong!

You have no points to address, and you have avoided answering mine!

Oh dear someone is still upset I made them look silly



Now again address my points or just continue to sulk and stop ruining the thread for everyone else

HoratioTarr wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I agree.  That's why I say the best education for them is to have them come live in Europe or America.  They learn...and it is not artificial, like these half-baked programs put up by the UN or WHO, or charities, etc.

The best way to give them western advantages, is to give then the advantage of experiencing the west.

 And yet when the West came to them and colonised them it was an outrage.  It was a case of take take take.   When independence came, it was take take take.   Corruption in Africa is rife and that's from their own people and Government.   Plus, you have a lot of tribal wars going on.   And why does the West always presume that people in third world countries are better off in their world?   Don't you think they'd be better off in their own environment being helped that way?   Encouraging people to leave their country is like cutting off the head to cure the disease.  

Africa is actually a very rich country in resources.   Why do you think it got colonised in the first place?    Southern Sudan is a huge fertile country with lots of rainfall and reserves of minerals and oil.  And yet it's torn apart with tribal warfare.  War creates destitution.  

Ghana was the richest country in Africa when it obtained independence. A few years later, it had no foreign reserves of any consequence. The money was spent on projects that turned out to be a waste of resources.  Take the construction of the Aswan Dam -  the block of the natural flow of the Nile River meant that the Nile's natural supply of nitrate fertilizer and organic material was blocked. Now, about one-third of the dam's electric output goes directly into fertilizer production for what was previously the most fertile area on the planet. Moreover, the dam is silting up and may cease to serve any useful purpose within the next few centuries. In addition, the Mediterranean Sea is slowly becoming more saline as the Nile River previously provided it with most of its new fresh water influx.

Perhaps something needs to be done about the affluent white landowners who own 82 percent of arable land in South Africa?  Give some back to the indigenous people might be a start.  But that won't help the whole continent.  It's not that simple.  

"On the surface we are blessed with infinite beauty and abundance of flora and fauna. Producing the most exquisite harvest of coffee, cocoa, fruits, vegetables... and culture. You name it, we've got it.

We also have diverse wildlife and vast marine resources. [...] A true paradise. They also had the first modern university in Africa and prior to that the first university in the world was founded in the kingdom of Timbuktu.

At a deeper level we are blessed with the real treasures that the kings and queens of this world desire. Diamonds and gold are commonly found in people's backyards. You'll also find about 20 precious minerals and recently huge oil reserves have also been discovered.

‍Platinum
Iron ore (the largest in Africa)
Zinc
Chrome
Phosphate
Potassium
Nickel
Exquisite timber like mahogany and teak
... all the stuff that goes straight into your computers, laptops and mobile devices.

https://www.poverties.org/blog/poverty-in-africa


So, encouraging the people to leave will probably fall right into the hands of those wishing to continue to exploit Africa and her resources.  


Africa is not poor. Africa is just poorly managed  
Architect Mumo Museva

   

+1

I don't agree with seizing land from people just because they're white.

It was you looking silly dodge... when you claimed that it was the romans who started the building of aqueducts... and i had to correct you that aqueducts ad already been being built for nearly 2000 years before the romans built them...!

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't agree with seizing land from people just because they're white.

I agree as what you are seeing is racism in reverse in Southern Africa

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:
I don't agree with seizing land from people just because they're white.

I agree as what you are seeing is racism in reverse in Southern Africa

*  How many white farmers gained their land, legitimately --  as opposed to those whose families were given lands by the invading colonial powers over the 17th -->> mid-20th century ???

*  How many farming families and companies (irregardless of 'colour') had leasehold and rented lands converted to "freehold" title illegally, simply because they were friendly with the corrupt gov'ts of the day ?

*  How many people, companies or corporations are currently occupying lsnds illegally, "gifted" to their families by corrupt governments ?

*  In Zimbabwe/Rhodesia many of the current farm owners are black Africans from neighbouring countries, given those farms by Mugabe because they are of the same ethnic/tribal background as him (Mugabe himself wasn't indigenous to Rhodesia..).  I will bet that tne Floptards wouldn't be so hesitant in removing Mugabe and his occupying thugs; as they are aboit returning stolen lands where it was European colonials who stole those lands  !!!

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Thorin wrote:


I agree as what you are seeing is racism in reverse in Southern Africa

*  How many white farmers gained their land, legitimately --  as opposed to those whose families were given lands by the invading colonial powers over the 17th -->> mid-20th century ???

*  How many farming families and companies (irregardless of 'colour') had leasehold and rented lands converted to "freehold" title illegally, simply because they were friendly with the corrupt gov'ts of the day ?

*  How many people, companies or corporations are currently occupying lsnds illegally, "gifted" to their families by corrupt governments ?

*  In Zimbabwe/Rhodesia many of the current farm owners are black Africans from neighbouring countries, given those farms by Mugabe because they are of the same ethnic/tribal background as him (Mugabe himself wasn't indigenous to Rhodesia..).  I will bet that tne Floptards wouldn't be so hesitant in removing Mugabe and his occupying thugs; as they are aboit returning stolen lands where it was European colonials who stole those lands  !!!

How does that make it right to take farms away from people who did nothing wrong?
These farms have been taken off white farmers and not given to the people but cronies of Mugabe.

How is that right?

The fact is these events happened years ago and where they may have been wrong, two wrongs do not make a right. What they should be a fair sharing of the lands and yet that has not happened. Those living today have nothing to do with the Colonial past. Just as you do not being Australian do you?

Most African tribes were nomadic and at the time recent migrants or conquerors to these lands. Where at the time of European colonialism,many tribal leaders sold land to the Europeans. So is that not even more wrong where there has been land purchases, to then rob those living today of these lands? How can you say anyone has rights to these lands, when we all descend from Africa? Surely then all would have rights. Placing a label of black and white on who gets land is just wrong, as we are all humans. As it should be based on being a citizen of Zimbabwe or South Africa. No matter their ethnicity.

I mean look at the argument being made here, that only Black Africans have rights to these lands and not White Africans. I mean how racist is that? As many of these White Africans have been living there for generations. It would be like saying the Palestinian Arabs have no rights to land rights in the Palestinian territories. Which would be absurd. As their ancestors came from the Arabian peninsular who conquered and through Arabization, changed the demographics of the area. Where most Palestinians and Israelis vastly descend from recent migrations in the last 150 years to the area. So all have rights to the land and it should never be based on skin colour, as that is fundamentally racist.

Now I back a fair system to redistribute the land fairly, but nobody should have their livelihood taken away without reasonable compensation.

Nobody should have their land taken with compensation either, unless they want it to be taken. White people are just as entitled to live there as anyone else and to own land.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Thorin wrote:

I agree as what you are seeing is racism in reverse in Southern Africa

*  How many white farmers gained their land, legitimately --  as opposed to those whose families were given lands by the invading colonial powers over the 17th -->> mid-20th century ???

*  How many farming families and companies (irregardless of 'colour') had leasehold and rented lands converted to "freehold" title illegally, simply because they were friendly with the corrupt gov'ts of the day ?

*  How many people, companies or corporations are currently occupying lsnds illegally, "gifted" to their families by corrupt governments ?

*  In Zimbabwe/Rhodesia many of the current farm owners are black Africans from neighbouring countries, given those farms by Mugabe because they are of the same ethnic/tribal background as him (Mugabe himself wasn't indigenous to Rhodesia..).  I will bet that tne Floptards wouldn't be so hesitant in removing Mugabe and his occupying thugs; as they are aboit returning stolen lands where it was European colonials who stole those lands  !!!

So you approve of land being stolen and given to black people by a corrupt government then? That's just racist.

Raggamuffin wrote:Nobody should have their land taken with compensation either, unless they want it to be taken. White people are just as entitled to live there as anyone else and to own land.

No that is wrong as well as they inherited farms. From where many lands were simply annexed and taken in the past. Where land was legally bought is different, but are you claiming that people who did nothing to earn land, should be entitled to this through inheritance, off nothing they did. But actually benefit from a past racist system? Hence the land today has to be redistributed fairly and those who lose some lands should have compensation. So yes White Africans are just entitled to live there as well as Black Africans

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Nobody should have their land taken with compensation either, unless they want it to be taken. White people are just as entitled to live there as anyone else and to own land.

No that is wrong as well as they inherited farms. From where many lands were simply annexed and taken in the past. Where land was legally bought is different, but are you claiming that people who did nothing to earn land, should be entitled to this through inheritance, off nothing they did. But actually benefit from a past racist system? Hence the land today has to be redistributed fairly and those who lose some lands should have compensation. So yes White Africans are just entitled to live there as well as Black Africans

The suggestion seems to be that black people who did nothing to earn the land should be given it, so what is the difference?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


No that is wrong as well as they inherited farms. From where many lands were simply annexed and taken in the past. Where land was legally bought is different, but are you claiming that people who did nothing to earn land, should be entitled to this through inheritance, off nothing they did. But actually benefit from a past racist system? Hence the land today has to be redistributed fairly and those who lose some lands should have compensation. So yes White Africans are just entitled to live there as well as Black Africans

The suggestion seems to be that black people who did nothing to earn the land should be given it, so what is the difference?

Hence the point a redistribution of the land to all citizens.
Nobody has done anything to earn the land, and why it needs a clean slate.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The suggestion seems to be that black people who did nothing to earn the land should be given it, so what is the difference?

Hence the point a redistribution of the land to all citizens.
Nobody has done anything to earn the land, and why it needs a clean slate.

By "redistribution", you mean taking the land off some people and giving it to others who did nothing to earn it, and did nothing to help build the business up just because they're black.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Hence the point a redistribution of the land to all citizens.
Nobody has done anything to earn the land, and why it needs a clean slate.

By "redistribution", you mean taking the land off some people and giving it to others who did nothing to earn it, and did nothing to help build the business up just because they're black.

What did those who inherited the land do to have these lands?
Nothing by any chance Rags?
Hence why it should be redistributed equally to all citizens

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I agree.  That's why I say the best education for them is to have them come live in Europe or America.  They learn...and it is not artificial, like these half-baked programs put up by the UN or WHO, or charities, etc.

The best way to give them western advantages, is to give then the advantage of experiencing the west.

I wasn't talking about western advantages though. Do they need them? Sure, they appear to make life easier, but they can complicate it too. They can improve things in Africa without going OTT and becoming "westernised".

I don't think so. I think when didge argues that education is what is needed, he is speaking of western education...and ultimately, western civilization. Tommy and Victor have both mentioned (to their chagrin) that Africans want to come to Europe. Once again, this suggests that the goal is westernization.

That being the case, the best place to get a western education is in the western nations of Europe...and America.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

By "redistribution", you mean taking the land off some people and giving it to others who did nothing to earn it, and did nothing to help build the business up just because they're black.

What did those who inherited the land do to have these lands?
Nothing by any chance Rags?
Hence why it should be redistributed equally to all citizens

What have black people done to earn the land? If they want it, they should offer to buy it.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I wasn't talking about western advantages though. Do they need them? Sure, they appear to make life easier, but they can complicate it too. They can improve things in Africa without going OTT and becoming "westernised".

I don't think so.  I think when didge argues that education is what is needed, he is speaking of western education...and ultimately, western civilization.  Tommy and Victor have both mentioned (to their chagrin) that Africans want to come to Europe.  Once again, this suggests that the goal is westernization.

That being the case, the best place to get a western education is in the western nations of Europe...and America.

Or westerners could go there and teach them. That would be more sensible.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

What did those who inherited the land do to have these lands?
Nothing by any chance Rags?
Hence why it should be redistributed equally to all citizens

What have black people done to earn the land? If they want it, they should offer to buy it.

What have white people done to earn the land?

Hence my point on redistribution and compensation.

You seem to be making a racist argument that Whites get to keep land they did nothing to earn

Raggamuffin wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


Tommy does go on with a useless load of bullshit, doesn't he  ???

There is a whopping great desert sitting smack bang there in the north of Africa, that is bigger than Australia (or at least it looks that way...). And dumbfuck Tommy also ignores how much of the remainder is still controlled by foreign corporations and countries.


Tommy also seems to believe that England actually invented industrialisation..

If it wasn't for the Romans, Celts, Saxons and Normans, the English would still be living in stone huts, hunting and gathering, and dying young...

So are you suggesting that the English, Italians, and French should now go over to Africa and take over Africa in order to improve it? That didn't work too well before.

I think--and I believe Wolf shares this--that Africans should inherit Africa. But if all the advantage is in becoming western, perhaps there should be open availability to come to Europe, to allow them to ingest westernization...and who knows, merge western cultural habits with the best of African cultural habits, and thereby improve on westernization.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So are you suggesting that the English, Italians, and French should now go over to Africa and take over Africa in order to improve it? That didn't work too well before.

I think--and I believe Wolf shares this--that Africans should inherit Africa.  But if all the advantage is in becoming western, perhaps there should be open availability to come to Europe, to allow them to ingest westernization...and who knows, merge western cultural habits with the best of African cultural habits, and thereby improve on westernization.

But we all come from Africa, so your argument is based on a poor racial view.
So by your reasoning only Europeans should inherit Europe then and that you would have to believe nobody from any other continent should have rights to land there?
That has to be the most silliest and racist argument I have ever heard.
You just argued that Africans should be able to come to Europe. So would they stay African or become European within a generation, with their children? Or have a dual identity?
See how labels screw everything up>?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

What have black people done to earn the land? If they want it, they should offer to buy it.

What have white people done to earn the land?

Hence my point on redistribution and compensation.

You seem to be making a racist argument that Whites get to keep land they did nothing to earn

What have black people done to earn the land? You seem to be making a racist argument that black people should take over land from white people just because they're black and therefore more deserving. That's a racist argument.

Why can't white people just run the land they're already running? It's racist to suggest that they shouldn't.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So are you suggesting that the English, Italians, and French should now go over to Africa and take over Africa in order to improve it? That didn't work too well before.

I think--and I believe Wolf shares this--that Africans should inherit Africa.  But if all the advantage is in becoming western, perhaps there should be open availability to come to Europe, to allow them to ingest westernization...and who knows, merge western cultural habits with the best of African cultural habits, and thereby improve on westernization.

Wolf is being racist and contradicting himself. He approves of people from elsewhere coming to Britain, but disapproves of people going to Africa from other countries.

What is the point of people from Africa coming to the west to benefit Africa? They would just stay here.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


What have white people done to earn the land?

Hence my point on redistribution and compensation.

You seem to be making a racist argument that Whites get to keep land they did nothing to earn

What have black people done to earn the land? You seem to be making a racist argument that black people should take over land from white people just because they're black and therefore more deserving. That's a racist argument.

Why can't white people just run the land they're already running? It's racist to suggest that they shouldn't.

Its you making the racist argument thinking white Africans have a right to lands, many of which were annexed or taken. My view is that all have rights to these lands, no matter whether white or black, as none have earned the right to them. Only those with legal sales off back when whites first settled should be relevant to white farmers keeping. Any off racism, should not be kept

You see my argument means redistribution, your is giving to people because they were born to the same family. Where they did nothing to earn this.

How racist are you looking Rags?

HoratioTarr wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I agree.  That's why I say the best education for them is to have them come live in Europe or America.  They learn...and it is not artificial, like these half-baked programs put up by the UN or WHO, or charities, etc.

The best way to give them western advantages, is to give then the advantage of experiencing the west.

 And yet when the West came to them and colonised them it was an outrage.  It was a case of take take take.   When independence came, it was take take take.   Corruption in Africa is rife and that's from their own people and Government.   Plus, you have a lot of tribal wars going on.   And why does the West always presume that people in third world countries are better off in their world?   Don't you think they'd be better off in their own environment being helped that way?   Encouraging people to leave their country is like cutting off the head to cure the disease.  

Africa is actually a very rich country in resources.   Why do you think it got colonised in the first place?    Southern Sudan is a huge fertile country with lots of rainfall and reserves of minerals and oil.  And yet it's torn apart with tribal warfare.  War creates destitution.  

Ghana was the richest country in Africa when it obtained independence. A few years later, it had no foreign reserves of any consequence. The money was spent on projects that turned out to be a waste of resources.  Take the construction of the Aswan Dam -  the block of the natural flow of the Nile River meant that the Nile's natural supply of nitrate fertilizer and organic material was blocked. Now, about one-third of the dam's electric output goes directly into fertilizer production for what was previously the most fertile area on the planet. Moreover, the dam is silting up and may cease to serve any useful purpose within the next few centuries. In addition, the Mediterranean Sea is slowly becoming more saline as the Nile River previously provided it with most of its new fresh water influx.

Perhaps something needs to be done about the affluent white landowners who own 82 percent of arable land in South Africa?  Give some back to the indigenous people might be a start.  But that won't help the whole continent.  It's not that simple.  

"On the surface we are blessed with infinite beauty and abundance of flora and fauna. Producing the most exquisite harvest of coffee, cocoa, fruits, vegetables... and culture. You name it, we've got it.

We also have diverse wildlife and vast marine resources. [...] A true paradise. They also had the first modern university in Africa and prior to that the first university in the world was founded in the kingdom of Timbuktu.

At a deeper level we are blessed with the real treasures that the kings and queens of this world desire. Diamonds and gold are commonly found in people's backyards. You'll also find about 20 precious minerals and recently huge oil reserves have also been discovered.

‍Platinum
Iron ore (the largest in Africa)
Zinc
Chrome
Phosphate
Potassium
Nickel
Exquisite timber like mahogany and teak
... all the stuff that goes straight into your computers, laptops and mobile devices.

https://www.poverties.org/blog/poverty-in-africa

So, encouraging the people to leave will probably fall right into the hands of those wishing to continue to exploit Africa and her resources.  

Africa is not poor. Africa is just poorly managed  
Architect Mumo Museva

Xlnt points. That is the value of opening Europe to Africans so as to allow a certain homogenization of peoples.

As long as we say close the doors and make it all happen in Africa, that's when precisely what HT says is the worst of exploitation, occurs. As long as we keep them contained over there, that is the cotton field, this is the warm house. Allow them to build some warm homes on the cotton acreage. Then the kind of exploitation that Wolf speaks of, is literally shunted out.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

What have black people done to earn the land? You seem to be making a racist argument that black people should take over land from white people just because they're black and therefore more deserving. That's a racist argument.

Why can't white people just run the land they're already running? It's racist to suggest that they shouldn't.

Its you making the racist argument thinking white Africans have a right to lands, many of which were annexed or taken. My view is that all have rights to these lands, no matter whether white or black, as none have earned the right to them.

You see my argument means redistribution, your is giving to people because they were born to the same family. Where they did nothing to earn this.

How racist are you looking Rags?

It's you making a racist statement by saying that white Africans don't have a right to the land, and that black people do just because they're black.

How racist are you looking Didge?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Its you making the racist argument thinking white Africans have a right to lands, many of which were annexed or taken. My view is that all have rights to these lands, no matter whether white or black, as none have earned the right to them.

You see my argument means redistribution, your is giving to people because they were born to the same family. Where they did nothing to earn this.

How racist are you looking Rags?

It's you making a racist statement by saying that white Africans don't have a right to the land, and that black people do just because they're black.

How racist are you looking Didge?

Where did i say that whites have no rights to lands?

I never did, as i stated all have rights to these lands did i not by having them redistributed to all citizens

So how does that make me racist rags?

You want to maintain white Africans keeping land where many never purchased legally in the first place

How racist do you look no Rags?

Raggamuffin wrote:Anyway, what good will it do if they go and live in Europe? That's not going to help Africa is it?

Yes it is. The homogenization of cultures is precisely what Africa needs.

You can't colonize England or Wales, eh? And if Africans become westernized, you won't be able to colonize them. This makes impermissible what Wolf speaks of when he brings up exploitation. Africans become "entitled" Englishmen on their own continent...lol, and everyone knows you don't fook with an Englishman.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Anyway, what good will it do if they go and live in Europe? That's not going to help Africa is it?

Yes it is.  The homogenization of cultures is precisely what Africa needs.  

You can't colonize England or Wales, eh?  And if Africans become westernized, you won't be able to colonize them.  This makes impermissible what Wolf speaks of when he brings up exploitation.  Africans become "entitled" Englishmen on their own continent...lol, and everyone knows you don't fook with an Englishman.

But we all come from Africa, so your argument is based on a poor racial view.
So by your reasoning only Europeans should inherit Europe then and that you would have to believe nobody from any other continent should have rights to land there?
That has to be the most silliest and racist argument I have ever heard.
You just argued that Africans should be able to come to Europe. So would they stay African or become European within a generation, with their children? Or have a dual identity?
See how labels screw everything up>?


Humans are humans, and being English, black, white etc are all labels and social constructs Quill.

Miffs2 wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Have you guys still got the plans for Hadrian's Wall?



A lot cheaper than starting from scratch.  Ask Trump...you won't get the Mexicans to pay for it.

Has building started yet?

You look forward to welcoming African immigrants safe in the knowledge they won't get as far as the states. Also, what would you do with them? America's preferred option - prison - is  unlikely, your prisons are full.

Oh my lord, we would love to welcome Africans. America is the land of immigration...and our greatness is built of our openness. Besides, we already have within our great family, members of the African race...and we love them.

Yes, there are archaic elements within our boundaries, who are racists and white supremacists. But there are such elements in every community. That's what BLACK LIVES MATTER is all about, and you have seen that some in our very midst believe that black lives don't matter. They glibly say, All lives matter, as if to deliberately snub the very kinds of thing of which you speak, nems...blacks in prisons, racism, "America's preferred option." They will be the ones who argue to keep Africa bottled up, to assure that the world has ample supply of slaves, and the raw materials that western Europe needs.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's you making a racist statement by saying that white Africans don't have a right to the land, and that black people do just because they're black.

How racist are you looking Didge?

Where did i say that whites have no rights to lands?

I never did, as i stated all have rights to these lands did i not by having them redistributed to all citizens

So how does that make me racist rags?

You want to maintain white Africans keeping land where many never purchased legally in the first place

How racist do you look no Rags?

You want black people to get land off white people just because they're black. That makes you racist.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Anyway, what good will it do if they go and live in Europe? That's not going to help Africa is it?

Yes it is.  The homogenization of cultures is precisely what Africa needs.  

You can't colonize England or Wales, eh?  And if Africans become westernized, you won't be able to colonize them.  This makes impermissible what Wolf speaks of when he brings up exploitation.  Africans become "entitled" Englishmen on their own continent...lol, and everyone knows you don't fook with an Englishman.

How can they help Africa if they're not in Africa?

Thorin wrote:How does that make it right to take farms away from people who did nothing wrong?

I think the point that Wolf is making is, they did nothing right, ether. They did nothing right to establish their claims to those lands. One take-away cancels out another take-away, and justice prevails.

Labels again from Quill when all Lives matter.
So why is it that to the group "Black Lives Matters" that black lives do not matter so much when killed by other blacks?

You see if the principle is on when cops shoot people, why only African American? Why not White, Asian or Latino? As actually whites are more often killed by Cops than Blacks. Surely then All lives should matter if people are killed by Cops. As that is what would have to be the case here. Unless you believe every African American shot by the Police and has died, is down to racism Quill?

Now there is no doubt that some shootings are born from racial prejudice and hate crimes. Yet to believe and set up a group to center only on blacks already has a confirmation bias that believes any shooting by the Police of a African American suspect is racism.

That is the danger here and only adds and fuels an already volatile situation.

In reality most Police officers are restrained and do not shoot or kill people. So to make a case that because some might actually be racially motivated. When in reality most Cops are human beings and like anyone else trigger happy when scared. When facing a potential life threatening situation. Is what is the core problem and reasons some people end up getting shot.

Sadly some like to politicize any shooting and when the officers are white, try to invent any racial avenue, to whip up anti Police sentiment. You are never going to resolve racism that way, when racism is claimed at every shooting a African American suspect criminals is killed.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I don't think so.  I think when didge argues that education is what is needed, he is speaking of western education...and ultimately, western civilization.  Tommy and Victor have both mentioned (to their chagrin) that Africans want to come to Europe.  Once again, this suggests that the goal is westernization.

That being the case, the best place to get a western education is in the western nations of Europe...and America.

Or westerners could go there and teach them. That would be more sensible.

We've been discussing that. That's precisely what doesn't work.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:How does that make it right to take farms away from people who did nothing wrong?

I think the point that Wolf is making is, they did nothing right, ether.  They did nothing right to establish their claims to those lands.  One take-away cancels out another take-away, and justice prevails.

No it doesn't cancel it out because then a person who did "nothing right" will end up with it. Merely being black is not a justification for being given land.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Where did i say that whites have no rights to lands?

I never did, as i stated all have rights to these lands did i not by having them redistributed to all citizens

So how does that make me racist rags?

You want to maintain white Africans keeping land where many never purchased legally in the first place

How racist do you look no Rags?

You want black people to get land off white people just because they're black. That makes you racist.

No i want citizens no matter whether black or white or Asian to have land evenly distributed rags

So how does that make me racist?

As my distribution is based on citizenship, not race.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Or westerners could go there and teach them. That would be more sensible.

We've been discussing that.  That's precisely what doesn't work.

And why not? Because the people of Africa don't want Europeans there? In that case, why do they think they have the right to go to Europe?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Where did i say that whites have no rights to lands?

I never did, as i stated all have rights to these lands did i not by having them redistributed to all citizens

So how does that make me racist rags?

You want to maintain white Africans keeping land where many never purchased legally in the first place

How racist do you look no Rags?

You want black people to get land off white people just because they're black. That makes you racist.

Isn't that what whites did? Isn't this water finding it's proper level?

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't agree with seizing land from people just because they're white.

But the Bank said farmers' inability to prove ownership, legal disputes and land grabs had held back cultivation.
Land governance needs to be improved if Africa is to fully exploit its resources and create jobs, it said. Writing in the report, Securing Africa's Land for Shared Prosperity, the Bank's vice-president for the continent, Makhtar Diop, said: "Despite abundant land and mineral wealth, Africa remains poor.

"Improving land governance is vital for achieving rapid economic growth and translating it into significantly less poverty and more opportunity for Africans, including women who make up 70% of Africa's farmers, yet are locked out of land ownership due to customary laws.

"The status quo is unacceptable and must change so that all Africans can benefit from their land," Mr Diop said.
The report recommends that governments secure tenure rights for communities and individuals, possibly using new and relatively cheap satellite technology to conduct land surveys.
The BBC's international development correspondent, Mark Doyle, says legal wrangles over land ownership are common in Africa.

"It's often the case that plots in urban areas have been divided, then sub-divided through generations of families, creating confusion over who owns what," our correspondent says.

"This makes long-term investment in things like farm machinery or irrigation risky."
The Bank said now was a good time to rationalise land ownership, so Africans could benefit more from surging commodity prices and strong levels of foreign investment.

Improved land management could also prevent land grabs, it said. In recent years, investors from richer countries, outside Africa, have bought millions of hectares of land and are able to claim that it is unoccupied.
But in some cases, the Bank said, established communities had been pushed off their farms.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23421548

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yes it is.  The homogenization of cultures is precisely what Africa needs.  

You can't colonize England or Wales, eh?  And if Africans become westernized, you won't be able to colonize them.  This makes impermissible what Wolf speaks of when he brings up exploitation.  Africans become "entitled" Englishmen on their own continent...lol, and everyone knows you don't fook with an Englishman.

How can they help Africa if they're not in Africa?

The same way Europeans did it, and established their injustice. Africans go to Africa to re-establish justice.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

How can they help Africa if they're not in Africa?

The same way Europeans did it, and established their injustice.  Africans go to Africa to re-establish justice.

That makes absolute zero sense

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I think the point that Wolf is making is, they did nothing right, ether.  They did nothing right to establish their claims to those lands.  One take-away cancels out another take-away, and justice prevails.

No it doesn't cancel it out because then a person who did "nothing right" will end up with it. Merely being black is not a justification for being given land.

It's not blacks we are speaking of. It's Africans.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No it doesn't cancel it out because then a person who did "nothing right" will end up with it. Merely being black is not a justification for being given land.

It's not blacks we are speaking of.  It's Africans.

We are all descended from Africans.
Do you see how silly it is to argue off labels?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I think the point that Wolf is making is, they did nothing right, ether.  They did nothing right to establish their claims to those lands.  One take-away cancels out another take-away, and justice prevails.

No it doesn't cancel it out because then a person who did "nothing right" will end up with it. Merely being black is not a justification for being given land.

There's a lot of land sitting there doing nothing, because it's privately owned by big companies. They're not using it. How is it fair for people to be poverty stricken when this is allowed to happen?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You want black people to get land off white people just because they're black. That makes you racist.

Isn't that what whites did?  Isn't this water finding it's proper level?

No, it's not - it's favouring people who are black, and discriminating against people who are white.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

We've been discussing that.  That's precisely what doesn't work.

And why not? Because the people of Africa don't want Europeans there? In that case, why do they think they have the right to go to Europe?

We've been discussing why colonization and exploitation didn't work. Go back to page 2 of this thread and read two excellent posts, one by Wolf on exploitation, and one by HT on colonization and the exploitative purposes of Europe on Africa in the 19th-century.

No one has a right to immigration. It's an offer or privilege extended by the host. That is what was wrong with the way Europe pillaged Africa in the 19th-century...they didn't respect the host.

We would hope that Europe would extend a helping hand now that it is more civilized.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No it doesn't cancel it out because then a person who did "nothing right" will end up with it. Merely being black is not a justification for being given land.

It's not blacks we are speaking of.  It's Africans.

So you don't think that white Africans should have their land taken away then. Jolly good.