Africa: the Prison Continent

Originally posted by Rebel_Lion


We had/have Samauri;

(Tribal Avengers. Read the blurb info; www.amazon.com... , they wear the same type of clothing as Samauri in China)

Can you post an article that is not from a book on African myths and folklore?
This is what the book you linked to says:


"A definitive compendium of African myth and folklore, retold in a rich, vibrant prose."

[edit on 2-2-2006 by AceOfBase]

Originally posted by syrinx high priest

Originally posted by Hamburglar

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
No oil, no aid I guess.

Well that notion would tend to discount the idea of "racism and ignorance" being the primary factors for lack of aid. Which is it?

you read this post, and that's all you have to comment on ?

allow me to satisfy your need for clairfication on this. if they had oil, we would be democratizing the beejusus outta them.

Yeah, I get it. No need to repeat.

What I actually pointed out was this: You mention racism and ignorance as the reasons we don't help out, but then quickly shift gears to oil. I simply said the one would tend to discount the other. I asked you to clarify your stance, not repeat it. I can just reread your original post if I want a rehashing of what you've already said.

Try again. And nicely please. I'm not your enemy.

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
are you kidding me? The arabs sold more africans into slavery than anybody.....who do you think brokered those deals between europeans?
The muslims are also responsible for some of the worse atrocities in africa. Souljah seriously, you have a very skewed view of things

I am not Kidding you, Man. Yes, the History of African Slavery goes back to the 9th and 10th Century, when the Muslims from North Africa came down to the Côte d'Ivoire - but this Slavery route, part of Trans-Saharan trading, did not leave such a Big Impact on either West Africa or the Maghreb. Little is know about numbers, but there were about 6000-7000 slaves per year traded to Arabia, and most of them were Servants, not Labor forces - like in the case of Trans-Atlantis Slave route that began in the 15th and 16th century when the Portugese discovered African slaves.

The Atlantic slave trade was an Entire new Ball game. Around 12 MILLION Slaves were Imported to Americas during the years of so-called colonization. And beacause the GOOD White Man first commited Genocide upon the Indian Population, which he first wanted to ENSLAVE, but it did not work out, because almost all of them were being decimated by European cruelty and diseases. Quickly the Europeans discovered that the West African practice of enslaving prisoners of war - and they Exploited that to the fullest. And from then on it was basic Corporate rule with Slavery, becaus slaves becase the Essential WAR Resource - like Oil is Today.

They soon started bartering these Captive slaves for Guns, Brandy and other goods that were only produced outside of Africa, and this gave Rise to an increasing Demand for capturing ever more Africans for the sole purpose of selling them into slavery to white Europeans. And also these African slaves were more resistant to European diseases than the Indians were and soon there was a regular trade.

So they were PERFECT for the Job. As you can see the Catholics just Improved an old African so-called Tradition and made it Bigger, and Better for them and their own Interests to create even more Profit by Exploiting the Native people of Africa AND America at the same time.

Slave Trade in Americas

The Atlantic slave trade was the purchase and transport of Africans into bondage and servitude in the New World. It is sometimes called the Maafa by African Americans. This term means holocaust or great disaster in kiSwahili. The slaves were one element of a three-part economic cycle—the Triangular Trade and its infamous Middle Passage—which ultimately involved four continents, four centuries and the lives and fortunes of millions of people.

Research published in 2006 reports the earliest known presence of slaves in the New World. A burial ground in Campeche, Mexico suggests slaves had been brought there not long after Hernán Cortés completed the subjugation of Mexico. Contemporary historians estimate some 12 million individuals were taken from west Africa to North, Central and South America and the Caribbean Islands by European colonial/imperialist powers



African Holocaust
Breaking the Silence
Africans in America
The Middle Passage

[edit on 2/2/06 by Souljah]

Originally posted by AceOfBase

Originally posted by Rebel_Lion


We had/have Samauri;

(Tribal Avengers. Read the blurb info; www.amazon.com... , they wear the same type of clothing as Samauri in China)

Can you post an article that is not from a book on African myths and folklore?
This is what the book you linked to says:


"A definitive compendium of African myth and folklore, retold in a rich, vibrant prose."

[edit on 2-2-2006 by AceOfBase]

I'd get the books I have but I'm not about to sit here and copy text for someone who'd rather point out things like that than actually engage in a debate about anything. The Tribal Avengers used to or prehaps still do, roam Africa to maintain the traditions of the Tribes, much like the police in western concept but more terrible. They'd wear baskets over their faces and use magik as well as physical force.

Credo Mutwa is a Zulu shaman and has written many books on Ancient Africa so when the time comes a rennassance (sp) can be reconstructed from his teachings.

I've left information in my posts for you to debate, you could ask me much better questions about Africa than to pick at a simple comment, a departing of fact about the Tribal Avengers. Ask me about ancient Ethiopia, or the Dogon Tribe... I even made a harsh statement about Nelson Mandela for you to sink your Georgian teeth into. I've had warnings about you from the mods Mr Ace.

Please don't waste my time.

As a young man, Vusamazulu Credo Mutwa, a Zulu from the South African province of Natal, was determined to follow in the foot-steps of his grandfather and become a tribal historian in order to keep the rich oral tradition of his culture alive. In this book, begun in response to the injustices against Africans and their culture, he sets these legends down in writing.

[edit on 2-2-2006 by Rebel_Lion]

Yeah, I get it. No need to repeat.

What I actually pointed out was this: You mention racism and ignorance as the reasons we don't help out, but then quickly shift gears to oil. I simply said the one would tend to discount the other. I asked you to clarify your stance, not repeat it. I can just reread your original post if I want a rehashing of what you've already said.

Try again. And nicely please. I'm not your enemy.

Hes simply pointing out, in a colourful manner, that Western aid supports their intrest in that particular region. Oil for Aid programms and such, they don't just help anyone its very well thought out.

Originally posted by Souljah
Tell me, besides spreading across the North and parts of West Africa, how has Islam Plaqued Africa? . . . Have the made big Money by trading with slaves, gold, ivory and spice? Yes, the Muslims were the first to reach African people, but they had never Exploited and Conquered it like the European colonists.

But not because they lacked the greed or ruthlessness to succeed.

There is the core of Souljah's racism.

Notice that Souljah cannot admit the reality of Arab slavery, and even refuses to construct a sentence that way. In Souljah's view, the Muslims were the first to "reach" african people. But the Europeans were the ones who did the conquering and exploiting.

If Arabs try to oppress you, enslave you, and circumcise your daughters, it doesn't count.

If Europeans try it, their crimes count triple. Because they're not Muslim.

Like demagogues everywhere, Souljah is only interested in other people's infamies.

.

You have voted dr_strangecraft for the Way Above Top Secret award.

You put forward an interesting comparison with China, Herr Doktor, and you didn't take any of Souljah's crap. I'm tempted to give you another vote.

DE

You know, this might be considered way off topic, but I don't really care.

AceOfBase, your comments bug the # out of me. What do you really think? Just come out with it. I'm tired of all this goddamned innuendo and sly comments. You think that those of African decent are somehow naturally inferior to Europeans don't you? Something that goes beyond culture and geographic circumstances...

If you think I'm jumping to some offbeat conclusion just look at all of your posts in this thread and try to think of how I would come to that conclusion.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
Notice that Souljah cannot admit the reality of Arab slavery, and even refuses to construct a sentence that way. In Souljah's view, the Muslims were the first to "reach" african people. But the Europeans were the ones who did the conquering and exploiting.

If Arabs try to oppress you, enslave you, and circumcise your daughters, it doesn't count.

If Europeans try it, their crimes count triple. Because they're not Muslim.

Like demagogues everywhere, Souljah is only interested in other people's infamies.

Herr Doctor - did I use the Word "reach"? I didn't say, that the reality of Arabs Slavery did not Exist, I mentioned it didn't I? The problem is, that the Muslims did not Exploit the African continent in the full way as the Europeans did. And you know that. You want to see the Map of Africa - it is Carved up by European superpowers - not by Arabic/Muslim superpowers. Why are so many white men so blind to this FACTS - and quickly look for ways out, by putting the blame, once again, on the Muslim people (which is ofcourse very fashionable today).

Europeans did not just "try it" - they actually DID IT "tripple times", as you said. When they slaughtered all the Native Indians, they needed something to fill the gap right? If you did not notice, the Europeans did ALOT of Conquering - they conquered America, Africa, Asia, Australia - actually is there a Continent that the White Mans foot did not Step? Can we say the same for the Muslims?



But Obviously you, and Others, are NOT Interested in listening to this.

Apparently everything that the White Man does, is consiederd Holy, Democratic and above all GOOD.

Very touche' subject, I will love to take a bite on this conversation. The fact of the matter is: Let's get this straight, u can't argue your way in this issue, because most ppl of a certain colour hue, are either cynical, don't give a damn, or refuse to lift the blinders covering their eyes, they sit and watch far away events with the same courtesy their governments show to the natives of these far away countries. Disdain. Hmm, what a sad state of affairs. I am a strong blooded african man, and will refuse to bow down to imperilisim.Regardless if I live in the so called privelage west or not

^Whats up with the name my brother? No offence or anything.

SoulJah, I can't reply to U2us unless I augment into my alter ego. Its lame. Can't augment cause the comp keeps me trapped within this body. I am now Rebel-Lion and will remain so.... The battle shall restart tomorrow, I'll bring out the guns about Islam and how its a better fit than Capitalism and Christianity put together by a well made tailsman.

(again no offence to the true blooded African Crusader, hope to debate later)

Peace
Rebel-Lion

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

If Arabs try to oppress you, enslave you, and circumcise your daughters, it doesn't count.

If Europeans try it, their crimes count triple. Because they're not Muslim.

That's not what I read. But anyone can make out what they want from a text anyway, right?

Its pretty pathetic how many will insult the source and the giver of the source for this thread just because they can never come to terms with themselves and what historical facts and modern time facts shows about the terrible conditions in modern Africa.

Everybody in the world or about every powerful nation has gotten something out of the Black continent and most of the time they careless for the people that are the natural inhabitants of the African lands.

Borders mean nothing for the people in Africa that are the result of tribal groups only for corrupt government that hold power within those borders it mean something.

What is the problem with Africa?

Very simple centuries of raping, murdering and conquering without any regard for the population is what has created the African of today.

So who is at fault?

Every single country and individuals that has taken anything from African including their natural inhabitants and profiteering from slavery.

Yes even I come from an Island that was conquered By Spain that by the way it was Portugal that sold African slaves to the Spanish for the colonies in the Caribbean.

Yes my ancestors were a mix of natives, Spanish and African slaves.

The colonies in the US started much later and cashed out in the trafficking but they did it in greater quantities.

I, and I think most reasonable people posting here, have absolutely no problem saying that the developed (white) nations have exploited most of the developing world in outrageous ways, and have set up governments designed to perpetuate that situation.

The Islamic superstates of a previous era did exactly the same thing.

They would certainly have like to have done more, but were stifled in part by the constraints of their trade networks, and, beginning in the 16th century, the encroach of the very European empires focused on in this thread.

Are modern states more efficient that medieval arab empires at exploitation? Of course.

Were the arab slavers abusive, exploitative, and revelling in their carnage? Certainly.

********

Now considering the present state of things. . . .

Consider Zimbabwe

White exploiters actually owned the state as a corporation, the "South African Company," which was eventually taken over by the british crown as South Rhodesia. At one point, I think the white minority declared an independent government from the UK, in a bid to stay in power over the Black majority.

In 1979, though, a guerilla uprising resulting in a revolution, and the instution of the Black-controlled state of Zimbabwe. One would think that from that point, things might begin to improve for the peple of that land. However, the new president, Robert Mugabe, has dominated all aspects of the government, and maintained power ever since. His "land reforms" forced almost all rural farming whites to flee the nation, plunging it into chaos and land was redistributed according to Mugabe's whim. Many of the technicians and engineers maintaining the nations infrastructure fled as well. Mugabe's security forces have become increasingly violent and have stifled all dissent.

I know from talking to currency traders there that the state set an artificially high value for the Zimbabwe Dollar (ZWD) versus the US Dollar. When local shop-owners began profiting from the government's "fantasy" exchange rate, security forces broke up illegal currency auctions with machetes, killing scores of people, and all for the crime of admitting that the ZWD is worthless paper.

My point here is this. Developed nations (especially the UK) bear responsibility for the enequalities and atmosphere of violence that Zimbabwe inherited at the moment of its birth as a nation. But at what point do its leader (Mugabe) and its people become responsible for their fate.

Once the black majority gained independence, it is an indigenous tyrant and indigenous "security forces" wielding the machetes, how does this continue to remain the fault of whites?

If the developed nations have done anything to heighten the misery of Zimbabwe, it has been to loan the nation money, which Mugabe stole, and which continues to add to the economic depression. But if they hadn't loaned any money, they'd be accused of "impoverishing" the state.

I was originally going to use Congo as an example. But as I read, I saw that most of the troops in Congo recently have not been European forces, french or US or UK; they have been "african peacekeeping troops" ---from Zimbabwe!

The continent's woes originated with Europeans (and Americans). But at some point, independent governments are responsible for their OWN shortcoings, regardless of their wealth, and regardless of the colors of their skins. After 20 year's of independence, surely some of Zimbabwe's problems lie with its own government.

Here's an article from Today's Telegraph about Mugabe's completion of the siezure of white farms, and about how he's now moving on the remaining urban whites.

At what point can Zimbabwean woes no longer be blamed on the white oppressor, or will Robert Mugabe (a black oppressor if there ever was one) always have a free pass because whites once set foot on the soil of his homeland? At what point is HE responsible for his own atrocities?

You have voted dr_strangecraft for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Great work Doc!

Thanks for putting the hard facts out on the table.

Africa has had control of its own for a long time now.

-- Boat

Originally posted by Souljah

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
are you kidding me? The arabs sold more africans into slavery than anybody.....who do you think brokered those deals between europeans?
The muslims are also responsible for some of the worse atrocities in africa. Souljah seriously, you have a very skewed view of things

I am not Kidding you, Man. Yes, the History of African Slavery goes back to the 9th and 10th Century, when the Muslims from North Africa came down to the Côte d'Ivoire - but this Slavery route, part of Trans-Saharan trading, did not leave such a Big Impact on either West Africa or the Maghreb. Little is know about numbers, but there were about 6000-7000 slaves per year traded to Arabia, and most of them were Servants, not Labor forces - like in the case of Trans-Atlantis Slave route that began in the 15th and 16th century when the Portugese discovered African slaves.
[edit on 2/2/06 by Souljah]

Oh, but because it was for 'domestic servants' that makes it better? Granted they may have traded less, but it still doesnt make any of it right. this has happened and the people of mine and your generations can do nothing to stop something that happened hundreds of years before we were born. Dont carry the wait of the world on your shoulders and although arms are routinely shipped to africa, if the leaders of those countries wished for anything different they would stop the shipments or propose a deal where instead of weapons they could try to trade them for other things.

The problem with the world thought is that most think africans are a helpless people and I believe they have been told this enough they believe it. the US or europe or anyone else doesnt have to decide whats best for africans, they can do that themselves.

[edit on 3-2-2006 by XphilesPhan]

Most, of the western inhabitants, with pale fair skin, and straightene hair, and clear blue eyes will never understand, what the hell is going on in Africa. Because they do not care, in fact most of the african inhabitants do not care what the rest of the world thinks of them. The cellphone , the cobalt u are using on your cell phone comes mainly from africa, the diamond engagement ring, u give your girlfriend, ilast week, majority comes from Africa. and I could go on and on. It's the richest, continenet in the world and yet so poor. That's why we as a people are more blessed than any other race on God';s earth. But yet, they say we are cursed, and they used all sorts of Biblical myth, like Ham's curse, and all sort of nonsense.

The pale people, will never understand, that africa, don't need no Handouts, do u think, china and the rest of the asian tigers got where they are by the aid of the western countries through, Aid?": NO! They got there with Fair Trade practices. Does the Black continet, have any of this? No!. Then we have people like the Ace of base, and mind u there are many like him, who feels that the Europeans(Wheteher they be white americans, Canandians, from Europe) they are all Europeans,because that's where they originated form.) are superior. Imagine taht he's saying that if the whiteman comes back to rule, everything will be back in order.? Please, we rule africa, for centuries and eons ago, before the pale face invaders came to our lands, and u telling us now we can't rule? Oh yes we can't beniow because we have puppets for governments, and they are just a branch of the colonial governments, taht exsist Today. We don't want any Aid to be given to Africa, Free andf fair Trade is what is needed. And root out corrupt politicvans,a nd the dictators!

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
I, and I think most reasonable people posting here, have absolutely no problem saying that the developed (white) nations have exploited most of the developing world in outrageous ways, and have set up governments designed to perpetuate that situation.

Excuse me, but how far did the Arab Colonizers go? Did they Colonize America, Australia, Asia and entire continent of Africa? How can their Trade with Slaves from Africa be compared to the White Man's SUPERMACY over this Planet as a whole?

If you take Northern America for Example - what was the ONLY reason for the Economic boom? It was the CHEAP labour forces (Slaves from Africa) that worked on the Vast Cotton Plantantions (STOLEN from Native Indians) - which made an Excellent Economic Combination, that boosted the Economy of the Newly formed American Empire.

Can you show me a Similar comparison in the Muslim World? Or is the Arab slave trade ring the only Argument you can find to yet again start mixing Islamic religion into ALL of the world Problems that we have today. Apparently the White-Catholics have run out of Reasons and Excuses to further Rape and Exploit this planet, and the big Bad dirty Commies are gone, so I guess its time to fight those evil Islamofascists.

Consider Zimbabwe

Yes, lets.

His "land reforms" forced almost all rural farming whites to flee the nation, plunging it into chaos and land was redistributed according to Mugabe's whim.

However you FORGOT or Intentionally Ignored to Mention the Further Facts behind this Event for Land Reforms in Zimbabwe.

Zimbabwean Whites, although making up less than 1% of the population, owned more than 70% of the arable land, comprising mainly the best.

And lets not forget the Natural Factor, which is Most Important in African Fragile Economy, which can collapse with a single Drougt:

The drought in southern Africa, perhaps the worst of the century, affected Zimbabwe so severely that a national disaster was declared in 1992. The drought compounded the country's debt crisis, and the ensuing IMF-backed economic adjustment and austerity program caused further widespread hardship.

My point here is this. Developed nations (especially the UK) bear responsibility for the enequalities and atmosphere of violence that Zimbabwe inherited at the moment of its birth as a nation. But at what point do its leader (Mugabe) and its people become responsible for their fate.

Yes, but they are Faced with an Enormous Struggle which can not be acchieved in just few years. Still Zimbabwe is an Artifical State, which has borders made up the the European Colonizers, which carved up the Continent as they pleased. One can not expect that such countries would Blossom at the second that they gain Independance on one way or another.

Zimbabwe is therefore caught in the Vicious Circle of its own Poverty and it can not get out. They face a wide variety of difficult economic Problems as they struggle to consolidate and upgrade their progress in the modern market-oriented economy. They face a Shortage of foreign exchange, soaring inflation (586% in 2005), and supply shortages - and to top it all, Natural Disasters. Badly needed support from the IMF has been suspended because of the country's failure to meet budgetary goals. The impact of land reform in Zimbabwe has badly damaged the ability of the commercial farming sector to gain foreign exchange.

They are locked inside the Giant Thirld World Debt problematics, that are forcing countries, such as Zimbabwe to borrow even MORE money. And the RICH Elite have them in their Grasp:

• Rich countries have pressured these poor countries to sacrifice health and education spending and prioritize on debt repayment
  
  
• Rich countries have protected their agricultural markets while forcing poor countries to open theirs, leading to dumping and flooding of products, driving local people out of businesses and livelihoods
  
  
• For rich countries, the debt figures involved are tiny - For poor countries, these same figures are a matter of life and death
  
  
• Africa’s debt servicing shows that a couple of countries even spend between 25-40% of government revenue on debt service, while many more fall within the 5 to 25% bracket
  
  
• In 1970, the world’s poorest countries (roughly 60 countries classified as low-income by the World Bank), owed $25 billion in debt - By 2002, this was $523 billion

So, how exactly are countries trapped in the Thirld World Debt-Trap going to get out of it? How are they going to Repay it, when they can not even support their own economy, their own people, their own future?

J.W. Smith - The World’s Wasted Wealth 2

The size of the debt trap can be controlled to claim all surplus production of a society, but if allowed to continue to grow the magic of compound interest dictates it is unsustainable. One trillion dollars compounded at 10 percent per year become $117 trillion in fifty years and $13.78 quadrillion in one hundred years, about $3.5 million for every man, woman and child in the Third World. Their debt is 50 percent greater than this and has been compounding at twice that rate — over 20 percent per year between 1973 and 1993, from $100 billion to $1.5 trillion [only $400 billion of the $1.5 trillion was actually borrowed money. The rest was runaway compound interest]. If Third World debt continues to compound at 20 percent per year, the $117 trillion debt will be reached in eighteen years and the $13.78 quadrillion debt in thirty-four years.

Noam Chomsky - The People Always PAY

"Debt is a social and ideological construct, not a simple economic fact. Furthermore, as understood long ago, liberalisation of capital flow serves as a powerful weapon against social justice and democracy. Recent policy decisions are choices by the powerful, based on perceived self-interest, not mysterious “economic laws”. Technical devices to alleviate their worst effects were proposed years ago, but have been dismissed by powerful interests that benefit. And the institutions that design the national and global systems are no more exempt from the need to demonstrate their legitimacy than predecessors that have thankfully been dismantled."

What is Surprising is that Zibabwe has the Literacy level of 90.2% - the highest in Africa. The literacy rate is higher than most developed countries and this is with the limited resources that the government of Zimbabwe has.

So, what do you Suggest Herr Doctor we do to help the Nations and Nationalities of Africa?

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
Like demagogues everywhere, Souljah is only interested in other people's infamies.

Originally posted by a little box on my screenYou have voted dr_strangecraft for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.

VERY well crafted logic. Excellent argument and conclusions. You looked your opponent in the face and said, "This aggression will not stand."

The dude abides...

Consider Zimbabwe

White exploiters actually owned the state as a corporation, the "South African Company," which was eventually taken over by the british crown as South Rhodesia. At one point, I think the white minority declared an independent government from the UK, in a bid to stay in power over the Black majority.

In 1979, though, a guerilla uprising resulting in a revolution, and the instution of the Black-controlled state of Zimbabwe. One would think that from that point, things might begin to improve for the peple of that land. However, the new president, Robert Mugabe, has dominated all aspects of the government, and maintained power ever since. His "land reforms" forced almost all rural farming whites to flee the nation, plunging it into chaos and land was redistributed according to Mugabe's whim. Many of the technicians and engineers maintaining the nations infrastructure fled as well. Mugabe's security forces have become increasingly violent and have stifled all dissent.

Nothing changes.

Mugabe fights to reform his part of Africa and belive me those newspapers you read will lie about what is going on. Misinformation is the weapon of today. Mugabe fought alongside Nelson Mandela during the aparthied thats still the flavor of the day in SA. I have friend from Jos' burg and they tell stories of how you still can't walk through, ''white'' sections of the state. Private armies keep control of the region and again nothing is printed in major newspapers to blanket the truth. A man fed his, African 'servant' to a rare white lion last year. A blatant racial injustice and of course he got away with it.

Everytime Mugabe or anyonther leader attempts to make a change that destablizes the foriegn intrest in that state it is slated, no diffrent from when Iraq demanded more money for its oil, war breaks out, groups are funded to dethrone the leader, lies are told.

Why would white farmers leaving plunge the state into anything if all was fair in the first place? Because it wasn't.

Mugabes nation is a fear for SA English residents because of their mistreatment of its inhabitants. If he turned things around it would change something that they would not want changing.

Mugabe has attempted to implement a form of communism in the state of Zimbabwe, African peoples much like other nations in the world are not ones for capitalism. This was another fear for the west and again it was dismantled and Mugabe blamed.

The man is no saint I wouldn't say that but again, you don't know the half.

If the developed nations have done anything to heighten the misery of Zimbabwe, it has been to loan the nation money, which Mugabe stole, and which continues to add to the economic depression. But if they hadn't loaned any money, they'd be accused of "impoverishing" the state.

You commit to loans and aid but somehow disbelive in FAIR TRADE. How can a country be turned around without FAIR TRADE? Something that was going into the pockets of WHITE farmers hence the retaliation.

If all was fair it would be fair.

But at some point, independent governments are responsible for their OWN shortcoings

You are right, and with FAIR TRADE it could be made possible.

You read from the Telegraph, did you know that each newspaper has a political standing? The Telegraph is a Tory supporting paper along with The Mail. Not that it matters but as I said, its not as though they're going to print whats really going on, this society is more twisted than you think and thats coming from a man whos skin colour and origin makes for a veiw on the outside rather than from within.

Its the main problem in society today and Iain Blair mentioned it only to be slated by the papers he was talking about. Institutional Racism.