Cruelest people in history?

[V.V.V.V.V.]

wat

 

[The Heartbreak Kid]

?

I agreed with you. All good.

 

[waif]

http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=...249972&usg=AFrqEzfHmNwdyrasb_XheH0LbN1TVVtocQ

It should be on most news channels I think.

woa.
And I don't watch news. That's how they get you.

Some of the people in the chinese communist party today who took part in the events were they basically ate the class teachers who disagreed with the communist bs and killed any pupils who weren't bullies like them.

Not sure I'm buying the cannibalism bit.

Yet they had slaves before they had guns.

If they had slaves to begin with then all of what you described already happened before we ever gave them anything.

You don't seem to grasp that European slavery was harsher, more brutal, and more permanent than the African system.

The cultural and political differences between Europe and Africa are vast. If anything, Africa is even worse. Thank god they do not have as great killing technology as we do (and political and cultural differences are mainly the reason they do not have great technology).

Now maybe the culture sucks, but we're talking about the 1600s, when all this happened. Their culture was different then.

True, but it is their own fault for having tribes to begin with and never moving past that mentality like Europe did.

Second, they weren't doing "fine" by any stretch of the imagination (unless you call a primitive society riddled with disease, cannibalism, ignorance, superstition, and cruelty good). They were fucking horrible. Stop romanticizing history.

Disease, ignorance, superstition, and cruelty...all words that might be used to describe European society at the time.

Third, technology is absolutely essential to meaningful life. Living day to day, hand to mouth and always worrying about where your next meal comes from is nothing but the life of an animal, utterly meaningless and can barely be considered a culture. This is especially true when combined with a good political system (which the Africans, with their patriarchs, kings, queens, and shamans, never had). If nothing else, technology is indeed indicative of success, especially when it comes to survival.

They weren't all hunter gatherers, you dumbass. Ever heard of Ghana? Mali? There were major empires in Africa, huge civilizations. Also...patriarchs, kings, queens? The Europeans had all that. Shamans? Ever heard of the Pope? None of these points against Africa don't apply to Europe at the time as well. Technology is not indicative of success. Necessity is the mother of invention, yes? If you don't need a gun, you probably won't invent one. If you don't need a gun, that implies to me that your society might be more peaceful than someone who needs a gun. Get my point?

 

[Einherjar86]

If you means eugenics in regards to sifting out, modifying, and eliminating inferior notions of culture, society, values, and political systems, then absolutely. How else is the whole world going to agree on only one political system: democracy.

That is what I meant; the improving of races in regards to their culture(s). I think it's important though to realize that for certain cultures, other political systems work just fine. If a society manages to build their economy on socialistic means (and they avoid violence and totalitarianism) then I believe they should be allowed to do so. I don't agree with Marxist philosophy, but I am willing to accept that for some countries it might work.

 

[waif]

So your response is basically: "well, African slavery was better, so slavery is justified"? That is a logical fallacy, I am afraid. You cannot excuse a wrong by pointing to a more vile one.

I never said slavery was justified. I'm saying that what they had was not something we would recognize as slavery. It was more similar to the system of indentured servitude practiced with whites in colonial America.

Also, if they knew European slavery was more brootuhl, they certainly had no qualms about selling their own people to the Europeans. Which is exactly the point.

Ok.
A) They didn't necessarily know
B) Africans aren't all one group. There were hundreds of distinct ethnicities and kingdoms. The ones who sold people to the whites were a group living on the coast. The people who were sold into slavery had never seen a white man before being sold.

Oh, so instead of mud huts, they had grass AND mud huts? All that AND they live in the dirt? Amazing.

Straw huts, domesticated animals, some crops or whatever...sound much like rural Europe? You fail to make a case for conditions in Europe being better. They lived in cities, but they threw shit in the streets, died of disease, and ate slop.

You mean to tell me that they had the actual cultural values to establish democracy, preserve human rights, and understand their world?

And Europeans did?

Africa was moreso. Is any of this sinking in?

I don't see how. The standard punishment in Europe for most crimes for a commoner was death. The Black Death killed a third of the population. People killed Jews because they believed that they baked children's blood in their matzo. Almost no one could read or write.

Anyway, those "empires" you speak of were not in themselves very impressive and very, very rarely were they worth a damn. They were not that huge of an improvement. Return on investment is very low.

This is an epic failure of logic. It's also not actually true.

Checked by another part of the government in some parts and vastly more complex than anything Africa came up with.

i.e. England had Parliament. Also, I don't see why you think it's so complex...or what's so great about a complex bureaucracy

I doube the Pope ever ground up animal bones and tried to use it as some mystically magical substance. Your apologism is absurd.

Not really. I'm not going to waste time going into all the little contradictions and absurdity inherent in Christianity, but I could (We all know this, I hope). Also, this was a time when all Christians subscribed to a literal interpretation of the bible.
Also...grinding up animal bones to use as a magic substance? Alchemists tried for hundreds of years to turn lead into gold. All this stuff seems ridiculous now. You have to consider the time.

Yeah, it is. A man catching fish with his bare hands is not going to be as successful as a man who uses a goddamn net. Less so than a man who farms them. See what I did there? I proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that technology is a sign of success.

Success is surviving to pass on your genes and raise your offspring to independence. If you can do that without a net then it really doesn't matter.

Look at today. Do you see any primitive countries being at the forefront of culture, economics, and politics? Do you see any primitive societies in which most of the populace is not scrounging around in the dirt like mongrels?

This implies that Africa did not need any improvements. Your trying to make it sound like it was some fucking paradise.

I'm saying that they weren't any worse off than Europe. Africa, without technology, was as good as Europe, with technology. That's all I'm saying. I leave it to you to draw what conclusions you like from that.

 

[SentinelSlain]

Not sure I'm buying the cannibalism bit.

Well I read about it in a book on cannibalism and a quick google came up with this:


http://www.ccds.charlotte.nc.us/History/China/02/carroll/carroll.htm

 

[waif]

I take it back.
And also, oh shit.

 

[Carcassian]

You know why Africa failed so badly ? We invented the seven wonders first. Have you seen what an advantage they are in CIV ?

 

[SentinelSlain]

I'd just like to point out that there were barbary muslim african slavers who came to England (mainly countries less far away though) and took slaves. The actual number of slaves taken from Europe could be in the millions.

 

[Vitor]

Who do you guys thing are some of the cruelest people in history? Bathory was pretty cruel.

i have no doubt. steven seagal!!!