It Has Started: Africans Are Kicking Chinese Out Of Their Countries

[DOS_patos]

Someone said Arabs took over Africa, then Europeans and now its just the Asians turn.

At this rate Latinos are going to have a turn as well.

I'm not down with this buddy buddy turn the other cheek shit that some posters are talking about in here.

That's how we got here in the first place.

i agree and shit since we at it...im not down with nigga not wanting their own business or learn finances or about credit and how it truly works and other shit tht can help us not rely on others.

but the more i post and reply the more i see.....we are ripe for the pickins anytime the world wants to buck and eliminate us.

hate to say it but we are the most morally immoral people around.

we hold our own to a high regard in the lowest forms. e forgive destructive shit depending on who we like and follow a dumbass if hes cool. shit is hella frustrating see so many of us not live up to his or her potential and not agree on shit but victimhood, bitches and sports. no solutions.

 

[DOS_patos]

And
And


And we got people always will to shut down ideas without offering any or even trying.

its worse than crabs in a barrel.......its like crabs dragging other crabs into the barrel they freely walking into....
niggas out here limiting themselves.

 

[The Lonious Monk]

Someone said Arabs took over Africa, then Europeans and now its just the Asians turn.

At this rate Latinos are going to have a turn as well.

I'm not down with this buddy buddy turn the other cheek shit that some posters are talking about in here.

That's how we got here in the first place.

That's false. People really need to learn history, and I don't mean that as a shot. I really mean that looking into history gives a lot of good understanding. Africans were never on buddy buddy turn the other cheek shit. I'm not sure where that came from.

Arabs didn't really take over much of Africa. They controlled some spots in Northern and East Africa for a while, but for the most part the spread of Islam was voluntary and didn't involve conquest.

Europeans gained control due to a combination of superior weaponry and the fact that Africa's ability to fight back was severely hampered by the slave trade. Though it is true that some leaders thought that becoming Christian would work the same with Europe as becoming Muslim did with the Middle East and they caught a rude awakening.

 

[Knock_Twice]

I disagree about the"superior weaponry",

What "superior weaponry" weapons did the Africans not have? Those guns and gun powder at the time were also in the hands of Africans (via trade)

Europeans would align themselves with a tribe (through religion or by capital) to get rid of another African tribe who were in war with that tribe or controlled something that could benefit both the tribe and the Europeans, take over the land, then take over the land/people of the tribe that they helped fight with

Deception was a key part in how Europeans stole most of the land in Africa. You just couldn't just walk into an African territory and break bread

When did "superior weaponry" come into existence with Europeans?

What do you mean when you say Africans couldn't fight back because they were hampered by the slave trade? I need you if you can, explain this statement

 

[Dwayne]

I disagree about the"superior weaponry",

What "superior weaponry" weapons did the Africans not have? Those guns and gun powder at the time were also in the hands of Africans (via trade)

Europeans would align themselves with a tribe (through religion or by capital) to get rid of another African tribe who were in war with that tribe or controlled something that could benefit both the tribe and the Europeans, take over the land, then take over the land/people of the tribe that they helped fight with

Deception was a key part in how Europeans stole most of the land in Africa. You just couldn't just walk into an African territory and break bread

When did "superior weaponry" come into existence with Europeans?

What do you mean when you say Africans couldn't fight back because they were hampered by the slave trade? I need you if you can, explain this statement

They had superior weapons bruh.

Africans on thewest did not have any guns or gun powder.

 

[Busta Carmichael]

That's false. People really need to learn history, and I don't mean that as a shot. I really mean that looking into history gives a lot of good understanding. Africans were never on buddy buddy turn the other cheek shit. I'm not sure where that came from.

Arabs didn't really take over much of Africa. They controlled some spots in Northern and East Africa for a while, but for the most part the spread of Islam was voluntary and didn't involve conquest.

Europeans gained control due to a combination of superior weaponry and the fact that Africa's ability to fight back was severely hampered by the slave trade. Though it is true that some leaders thought that becoming Christian would work the same with Europe as becoming Muslim did with the Middle East and they caught a rude awakening.

Lmao Arabs had a whole slave trade going on from the medieval times to the 20th century.

They still have an open slave trade of Africans as we speak and are selling them on Facebook. Growing up around them I know they are very hostile against black people, Moreso than any race.

I don't believe neither Islam or Christianity was voluntary. That's what they want you to believe.

Europeans conquered Africa in such as way that 27 countries are still paying tax to France for colonization that they never asked for.

 

[Knock_Twice]

Real Media Household Income By Race: 1967 to 2014

1967
White Household were at $52,000
Blacks Household were at $26,000 (double)

in 1970, the influx of immigrants came into the U.S. and their household was at according to the U.S. Census chart began at $38,900 well above the Blacks

By 2014, Hispanics income had reached $42,500, $7,000 higher than Blacks which was at $35,400 even though 90% of all Hispanics in American in 2014 had been in the country less than 45 years.

In the late Asians, who were classified with the Arabs began to enter the country, their median was $64,000 and by 2014 it was at $74, 300 doubling that of the Blacks.

The wealth gap has gotten wider since 2014 with Blacks and the rest of the group of people thus why the politicians that were running for President this year kept stating that they were trying to reduce the gap when they would speak to a black audience.

 

[Knock_Twice]

They had superior weapons bruh.

Africans on thewest did not have any guns or gun powder.

What is a "superior weapon" and what time frame are you talking when these so call "superior weapons" were made?

Europeans invaded Africa before guns were invented.

 

[Knock_Twice]

Lmao Arabs had a whole slave trade going on from the medieval times to the 20th century.

They still have an open slave trade of Africans as we speak and are selling them on Facebook. Growing up around them I know they are very hostile against black people, Moreso than any race.

I don't believe neither Islam or Christianity was voluntary. That's what they want you to believe.

Europeans conquered Africa in such as way that 27 countries are still paying tax to France for colonization that they never asked for.

Exactly,

I'm not sure what Monk is talking about with his statement, which is why I am asking for him to explain his statement with more clarity

 

[DOS_patos]

Lmao Arabs had a whole slave trade going on from the medieval times to the 20th century.

They still have an open slave trade of Africans as we speak and are selling them on Facebook. Growing up around them I know they are very hostile against black people, Moreso than any race.

I don't believe neither Islam or Christianity was voluntary. That's what they want you to believe.

Europeans conquered Africa in such as way that 27 countries are still paying tax to France for colonization that they never asked for.

and this is why france has so much money and such a "strong" economy,.

it can be like that when all you get is money.

 

[The Lonious Monk]

I disagree about the"superior weaponry",

What "superior weaponry" weapons did the Africans not have? Those guns and gun powder at the time were also in the hands of Africans (via trade)

Europeans would align themselves with a tribe (through religion or by capital) to get rid of another African tribe who were in war with that tribe or controlled something that could benefit both the tribe and the Europeans, take over the land, then take over the land/people of the tribe that they helped fight with

Deception was a key part in how Europeans stole most of the land in Africa. You just couldn't just walk into an African territory and break bread

When did "superior weaponry" come into existence with Europeans?

What do you mean when you say Africans couldn't fight back because they were hampered by the slave trade? I need you if you can, explain this statement

To answer your first question: the gatling gun. Before that, the gun technology wasn't anything that couldn't be matched by the Africans. Skillful bowmen could outfight gunmen in a lot of cases. However, when the British developed the gatling gun and others followed suit, there wasn't much the Africans could do to defend against that even with the guns they had acquired. The same basic thing happened with the Native Americans. At one point the Native Americans were fucking the Euros up because they were better with their bows than Euros were with their guns. However, when gatling guns and cannons came along, the story changed. Also, the Euros did things like pretend to call truces and then slaughter whole Native villages when they weren't expecting it, but that's another matter.

To answer your second question: the slave trade depleted the African continent of millions of people. I know that may not sound like much since the U.S. has 300 million people by itself, but you have to remember that the global population was much smaller back then and we're really talking about all those people coming from a relatively small percentage of the total continent. Then you have to factor in that contrary to popular belief, the Euros weren't just stealing all those people. They were trading for most of them, and lot of the people sent were prisoners of war or rivals to controlling powers. In other words, Africans were trading away the fighting forces of contenders in the region. So when the Euros began to make their play for colonization and it was time for the Africans to link up to defend against the outside force, they couldn't amass a suitable resistance.

 

[DOS_patos]

Real Media Household Income By Race: 1967 to 2014

1967
White Household were at $52,000
Blacks Household were at $26,000 (double)

in 1970, the influx of immigrants came into the U.S. and their household was at according to the U.S. Census chart began at $38,900 well above the Blacks

By 2014, Hispanics income had reached $42,500, $7,000 higher than Blacks which was at $35,400 even though 90% of all Hispanics in American in 2014 had been in the country less than 45 years.

In the late Asians, who were classified with the Arabs began to enter the country, their median was $64,000 and by 2014 it was at $74, 300 doubling that of the Blacks.

The wealth gap has gotten wider since 2014 with Blacks and the rest of the group of people thus why the politicians that were running for President this year kept stating that they were trying to reduce the gap when they would speak to a black audience.

is this a surprise tho?

everyone you named came here and put in work.

 

[The Lonious Monk]

Lmao Arabs had a whole slave trade going on from the medieval times to the 20th century.

They still have an open slave trade of Africans as we speak and are selling them on Facebook. Growing up around them I know they are very hostile against black people, Moreso than any race.

I don't believe neither Islam or Christianity was voluntary. That's what they want you to believe.

Europeans conquered Africa in such as way that 27 countries are still paying tax to France for colonization that they never asked for.

Yeah, Arabs had a slave trade, but what does that have to do with conquest. It was actual trade as in the Arabs were dealing with traders on the Swahili coast to get most of their slaves. They didn't just rush into Africa and take a lot of people. And you can believe what you want, but kings in Africa regularly took on outside religions for political reasons. If you wanted to do business with Muslims on equal footing, you needed to be a Muslims. That's how empires like Ghana and Mali became Muslim. The Arabs never conquered those empires. You're selling Africa short.

Exactly,

I'm not sure what Monk is talking about with his statement, which is why I am asking for him to explain his statement with more clarity

I don't understand what that has to do with what I said at all. The Arab slave trade and European slave trade are two different things. The Arab slave trade lasted longer, but the demand during the European slave trade was much higher. Some West African countries went from solely trading away people from rival tribes to trading away some of their own people too because they couldn't meet the demand otherwise.

 

[Knock_Twice]

To answer your first question: the gatling gun. Before that, the gun technology wasn't anything that couldn't be matched by the Africans. Skillful bowmen could outfight gunmen in a lot of cases. However, when the British developed the gatling gun and others followed suit, there wasn't much the Africans could do to defend against that even with the guns they had acquired. The same basic thing happened with the Native Americans. At one point the Native Americans were fucking the Euros up because they were better with their bows than Euros were with their guns. However, when gatling guns and cannons came along, the story changed. Also, the Euros did things like pretend to call truces and then slaughter whole Native villages when they weren't expecting it, but that's another matter.

To answer your second question: the slave trade depleted the African continent of millions of people. I know that may not sound like much since the U.S. has 300 million people by itself, but you have to remember that the global population was much smaller back then and we're really talking about all those people coming from a relatively small percentage of the total continent. Then you have to factor in that contrary to popular belief, the Euros weren't just stealing all those people. They were trading for most of them, and lot of the people sent were prisoners of war or rivals to controlling powers. In other words, Africans were trading away the fighting forces of contenders in the region. So when the Euros began to make their play for colonization and it was time for the Africans to link up to defend against the outside force, they couldn't amass a suitable resistance.

As I stated to Thor, Europeans came into Africa before guns were even invented. Also, those guns that were invented were used in trade and Africans had them as well. Those guns were used in attacks against other African tribes which were done by other Africans with those guns. Are you saying that a King/or Priest of a Kingdom couldn't get his hands on a "gatling gun" Some of these Kings empires and cities were bigger than most Europeans countries and they couldn't get their hands on a "gatling gun" Come on Monk Lol
I respect your opinion but we really have to look at this time with a magnifying glass, we can't just be saying any ole thing we heard from a 60 minutes piece, not saying you are doing this but it lines up with a reporter who hasn't really done their research about the history and time

 

[Knock_Twice]

To answer your first question: the gatling gun. Before that, the gun technology wasn't anything that couldn't be matched by the Africans. Skillful bowmen could outfight gunmen in a lot of cases. However, when the British developed the gatling gun and others followed suit, there wasn't much the Africans could do to defend against that even with the guns they had acquired. The same basic thing happened with the Native Americans. At one point the Native Americans were fucking the Euros up because they were better with their bows than Euros were with their guns. However, when gatling guns and cannons came along, the story changed. Also, the Euros did things like pretend to call truces and then slaughter whole Native villages when they weren't expecting it, but that's another matter.

To answer your second question: the slave trade depleted the African continent of millions of people. I know that may not sound like much since the U.S. has 300 million people by itself, but you have to remember that the global population was much smaller back then and we're really talking about all those people coming from a relatively small percentage of the total continent. Then you have to factor in that contrary to popular belief, the Euros weren't just stealing all those people. They were trading for most of them, and lot of the people sent were prisoners of war or rivals to controlling powers. In other words, Africans were trading away the fighting forces of contenders in the region. So when the Euros began to make their play for colonization and it was time for the Africans to link up to defend against the outside force, they couldn't amass a suitable resistance.

The slave trade had nothing to do with Africans being unable to fight back, simply because there was already a slave trade going on before the Europeans had invaded Africa.

 

[Knock_Twice]

is this a surprise tho?

everyone you named came here and put in work.

It may be a surprised to some who may think the gap isn't wide. I wanted to put more pop and shine more light with real data on how far Blacks are behind with other races in this country

Point me to an all affluent black neighborhood in the U.S., There may be 3 and I'm guessing on that

 

[Knock_Twice]

Yeah, Arabs had a slave trade, but what does that have to do with conquest. It was actual trade as in the Arabs were dealing with traders on the Swahili coast to get most of their slaves. They didn't just rush into Africa and take a lot of people. And you can believe what you want, but kings in Africa regularly took on outside religions for political reasons. If you wanted to do business with Muslims on equal footing, you needed to be a Muslims. That's how empires like Ghana and Mali became Muslim. The Arabs never conquered those empires. You're selling Africa short.



I don't understand what that has to do with what I said at all. The Arab slave trade and European slave trade are two different things. The Arab slave trade lasted longer, but the demand during the European slave trade was much higher. Some West African countries went from solely trading away people from rival tribes to trading away some of their own people too because they couldn't meet the demand otherwise.

I'm not going to touch that one Monk Lol.. I don't know brudda. I gotta look that one up brudda.

I'll say this: The Doctrine of Unequal Exchange played a part into all of what you are saying

 

[The Lonious Monk]

As I stated to Thor, Europeans came into Africa before guns were even invented. Also, those guns that were invented were used in trade and Africans had them as well. Those guns were used in attacks against other African tribes which were done by other Africans with those guns. Are you saying that a King/or Priest of a Kingdom couldn't get his hands on a "gatling gun" Some of these Kings empires and cities were bigger than most Europeans countries and they couldn't get their hands on a "gatling gun" Come on Monk Lol
I respect your opinion but we really have to look at this time with a magnifying glass, we can't just be saying any ole thing we heard from a 60 minutes piece, not saying you are doing this but it lines up with a reporter who hasn't really done their research about the history and time

lol That's like asking why Al Queda hasn't gotten their hands on a nuke or enough radioactive material to make a dirty bomb. Where exactly would the African kings get gatling guns from? The only people who had them at the time were the Europeans, and they weren't trading those. They were using those for conquest. Africa never really had a thriving firearm manufacturing industry anywhere. They got most of their guns from trading with Europeans and Arabs. So, when they Europeans came with the gatling gun, Africans had no way to develop a counter. It doesn't matter how big your kingdom is. You have to have the particular resources and knowledge to match something like that, and Africa didn't really have either. Europe had more iron at the time thanks to the discoveries in England that essentially jumpstarted the industrial revolution, and the gatling gun was a European invention.

 

[The Lonious Monk]

The slave trade had nothing to do with Africans being unable to fight back, simply because there was already a slave trade going on before the Europeans had invaded Africa.

Bruh I gotta go and don't have time to dig into it now, but you have to look at the numbers. The Arab slave trade did not deplete the continent of people the way the European slave trade did.

I'm not going to touch that one Monk Lol.. I don't know brudda. I gotta look that one up brudda.

I'll say this: The Doctrine of Unequal Exchange played a part into all of what you are saying

But where is the unequal exchange? The African kingdoms and nations that traded resources and slaves got massively wealthy and powerful. There is a reason that Mansa Musa is to this day the wealthiest person to ever live. They had a huge gold, salt, and slave network going. Arabs didn't even try to fuck with the Ghana, Mali, or Songhai empires because they were that powerful. It wasn't until Songhai was in it's decline that the North Africans invaded, but even then North Africans =/= Arabs.

 

[Knock_Twice]

lol That's like asking why Al Queda hasn't gotten their hands on a nuke or enough radioactive material to make a dirty bomb. Where exactly would the African kings get gatling guns from? The only people who had them at the time were the Europeans, and they weren't trading those. They were using those for conquest. Africa never really had a thriving firearm manufacturing industry anywhere. They got most of their guns from trading with Europeans and Arabs. So, when they Europeans came with the gatling gun, Africans had no way to develop a counter. It doesn't matter how big your kingdom is. You have to have the particular resources and knowledge to match something like that, and Africa didn't really have either. Europe had more iron at the time thanks to the discoveries in England that essentially jumpstarted the industrial revolution, and the gatling gun was a European invention.

Europe at the time was a broke continent, they had prolong periods of famine, diseases, crime and dire poverty before slavery powered this country this is why I am trying to understand how these Europeans have all of these "superior weaponry"

Who was buying iron and what was being built? pre-slavery? Lol

Monk I'm giving you a hard time because what you are saying and the time-line of things happening isn't accurate.