Af: JR

JR — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 06:02:53 +0000

Lad mig begynde med at sige, at jeg på ingen måde afviser at artiklens konklusioner er rigtige (omend der jo godt kan være andre forklaringsvariable som i virkeligheden er de rigtige – man kan jo i sagens natur kun korrigere for de effekter man har tænkt på).Man kan groft sagt sige, at de forklaringsvariable som beskrives i artiklen kan beskrives som kulturel evolution på grund af incitamenter der blev påtrykt på grund af slavehandelen. Som ikke-økonom vil jeg dog gerne kaste en anden mulig forklaringsvariabel ind i diskussionen: naturlig evolution.På præcis samme måde som den kulturelle evolution drives af det omgivende miljø, drives også den genetiske evolution af de forhold man lever under (det er blot ikke politisk korrekt at beskæftige sig med dette på grund af nazisternes besættelse af og uhyrligheder på grund af dette). Kort sagt vil man forvente en naturlig selektion som favoriserer de individer med de karakteristika som giver dem bedst mulighed for at få flest børn (som også skal nå at få børn uden at dø eller blive udskibet som slaver).Jeg spørger af nysgerrighed: Er der gode videnskabelige argumenter for at ignorere naturlig selektion i sådanne studier?

Af: Raapil

Raapil — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 01:50:02 +0000

Spændende konklusioner på artiklen, og positivt at slavehandel-argumentet får lidt oprejsning. Jeg synes nemlig, man har fokuseret alt for meget på ‘de dårlige ledere’, når man har villet forklare Afrikas problemer. Risikoen ved det er, at det bidrager til enten et halvracistisk syn på afrikanerne (‘de er bare for dumme’) eller et offergørende syn (‘det er synd for dem, at de er så dumme’).Afrikanerne har – ikke de ledere de fortjener, men de ledere, som de afrikanske samfunds socioøkonomiske struktur lægger op til. Når det gælder udvikling, så er sagen vel, at det ikke bare er slavehandlen, men en hel række faktorer, der gør, at Afrika i dag er så meget bagud i forhold til resten af verden:For det første har Afrika i høj grad været et isoleret kontinent. Afstandene er store, og i tusinder af år har Sahara ligget som en barriere mellem syd og nord. For det andet (som Nunn også skriver, og som slavehandlen uddybede) så har der været en meget spredt kontakt mellem landsbyer og etniske grupper i Afrika. Netop fordi kontinentet var relativt tyndt befolket og stort af omfang.Man skal også huske på, at Afrika i forhold til Europa og Asien allerede før koloni- og slavetiden var ‘bagud på point’. Man var kun for nylig overgået til jernteknologi, hvilket igen handler om kontinentets isolerede status. Det er jo ikke noget tilfælde, at civilisationens vugge stod i det Mellemøsten, som var en ren gennemgangslejr for handelsfolk, hærførere og andre vandrende folk.Desuden har de klimatiske forhold i Afrika gjort, at det var vanskeligt at finde gode afgrøder, der kunne dyrkes og mætte mange. De for os almindeligste kornsorter gror ikke godt i Afrika, og det var først med majsens introduktion efter 1500, at man fandt en virkelig velegnet afgrøde. Kvæghold har også i store dele af kontinentet været vanskeliggjort af tsetse-fluen.Afrika er stadig bagud på point, fordi kontinentet har været så samspilsramt, men der er da positive takter enkelte steder.

Af: Alfred Olsen

Alfred Olsen — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 00:13:53 +0000

Historiske faktorer- ja da…Jihad destroyed a Christian Middle East and a Christian North Africa. Soon it was the fate of the Persian Zoroastrian and the Hindu to be the victims of jihad. The history of political Islam is the destruction of Christianity in the Middle East, Egypt, Turkey and North Africa. Half of Christianity was lost. Before Islam, North Africa was the southern part of Europe (part of the Roman Empire). Around 60 million Christians were slaughtered during the jihadic conquest.Half of the glorious Hindu civilization was annihilated and 80 million Hindus killed.The first Western Buddhists were the Greeks descended from Alexander the Greats army in what is now Afghanistan. Jihad destroyed all of Buddhism along the silk route. About 10 million Buddhists died. The conquest of Buddhism is the practical result of pacifism.Zoarasterianism was eliminated from Persia.The Jews became permanent dhimmis throughout Islam.In Africa over 120 million Christians and animists have died over the last 1400 years of jihad.Approximately 270 million nonbelievers died over the last 1400 years for the glory of political Islam. These are the Tears of Jihad which are not taught in any school.FP: How have our intellectuals responded to Islam?Warner: The basis of all the unbelievers thought has collapsed in the face of Islamic political thought, ethics and logic. We have already mentioned how our first intellectuals could not even name the invaders as Muslims. We have no method of analysis of Islam. We cant agree on what Islam is and have no knowledge about our suffering as the victims of a 1400-year jihad.Look at how Christians, Jews, blacks, intellectuals and artists have dealt with Islamic doctrine and history. In every case their primary ideas fail.Christians believe that love conquers all. Well, love does not conquer Islam. Christians have a difficult time seeing Islam as a political doctrine, not a religion. The sectarian nature of Christian thought means that the average non-Orthodox Christian has no knowledge or sympathy about the Orthodox Christians suffering.Jews have a theology that posits a unique relationship between Jews and the creator-god of the universe. But Islam sees the Jews as apes who corrupted the Old Testament. Jews see no connection between Islams political doctrine and Israel.Black intellectuals have based their ideas on the slave/victim status and how wrong it was for white Christians to make them slaves. Islam has never acknowledged any of the pain and suffering it has caused in Africa with its 1400-year-old slave trade. But blacks make no attempt to get an apology from Muslims and are silent in the presence of Islam. Why? Is it because Arabs are their masters?Multiculturalism is bankrupt against Islams demand for every civilization to submit. The culture of tolerance collapses in the face of the sacred intolerance of dualistic ethics. Intellectuals respond by ignoring the failure.Our intellectuals and artists have been abused for 1400 years. Indeed, the psychology of our intellectuals is exactly like the psychology of the abused wife, the sexually abused child or rape victim. Look at the parallels between the response of abuse victims and our intellectuals. See how violence has caused denial.The victims deny that the abuse took place: Our media never reports the majority of jihad around the world. Our intellectuals dont talk about how all of the violence is connected to a political doctrine.The abuser uses fear to control the victim: What was the reason that newspapers would not publish the Mohammed cartoon? Salman Rushdie still has a death sentence for his novel. What cutting edge artist creates any artistic statement about Islam?Fear rules our intellectuals and artists.The victims find ways to blame themselves: We are to blame for the attacks on September 11, 2001. If we try harder Muslims will act nicer. We have to accommodate their needs.The victim is humiliated: White people will not talk about how their ancestors were enslaved by Islam. No one wants to claim the victims of jihad. Why wont we claim the suffering of our ancestors? Why dont we cry about the loss of cultures and peoples? We are too ashamed to care.The victim feels helpless: What are we going to do?We cant kill 1.3 billion people.No one has any understanding or optimism. No one has an idea of what to try. The only plan is to be nicer.The victim turns the anger inward: What is the most divisive issue in todays politics? Iraq. And what is Iraq really about? Political Islam. The Web has a video about how the CIA and Bush planned and executed September 11. Cultural self-loathing is the watchword of our intellectuals and artists.We hate ourselves because we are mentally molested and abused. Our intellectuals and artists have responded to the abuse of jihad just as a sexually abused child or a rape victim would respond. We are quite intellectually ill and are failing at our job of clear thinking. We cant look at our denial.FP: So summarize for us why it is so crucial for us to learn the doctrine of political Islam.Warner: Political Islam has annihilated every culture it has invaded or immigrated to. The total time for annihilation takes centuries, but once Islam is ascendant it never fails. The host culture disappears and becomes extinct.We must learn the doctrine of political Islam to survive. The doctrine is very clear that all forms of force and persuasion may and must be used to conquer us. Islam is a self-declared enemy of all unbelievers. The brilliant Chinese philosopher of war, Sun Tsu, had the dictumknow the enemy.We must know the doctrine of our enemy or be annihilated.Or put another way: if we do not learn the doctrine of political Islam, our civilization will be annihilated just as Egypts Coptic civilization was annihilated.Since unbelievers must know the doctrine of political Islam to survive, CSPI has written all of its books in simple English. Our books are scholarly, but easy to read. As an example, anyone who can read a newspaper can pick up A Simple Koran and read and understand it. It is not dumbed down and contains every single word of the original.Not only is the language simple, but logic has been used to sort and categorize. Context and chronology have been restored. The result is a Koran that is an epic story ending in triumph over all enemies of Allah. All of our books and philosophy may be found at our center’s website.Islam declares that we are the enemies of Allah. If we do not learn the political doctrine of Islam we will end up just like the first victims of Islamthe tolerant, polytheist Arabs of Saudi Arabia who became the Wahabbis (a very strict branch of Islam) of today, the most intolerant culture on the face of the earth.FP: Bill Warner, thank you for joining us today.Warner: Jamie, thank you for your kindness and efforts.Foroven fra: http://peoplesvoice-whisperorshout.blogspot.com/

Kommentarer til: Slavehandel og afrikansk udvikling

Af: JR

Af: Raapil

Af: Alfred Olsen