Should The Poor Be Sterilized

Originally posted by Johnmike
Stop labeling me as someone from the "west." I have had no contact with Africa whatsoever, nor has any of my family to my knowledge.

Stop labeling all Africans as both poor and black. That's self-explanatory.

I don't know if you mean to reply to me, but if so, I said no such thing. I don't know where you come from. But I do know that two of your posts contained quotes that express the views I am critical of. If you are from any of the nations whose colonial, imperialistic actions benefitted their citizens at the expense of those whom they conquered and exploited, like Africans, then you have benefitted from the plunder whether or not your immediate family was directly involved. Canada, the US, Britain, France, Spain, to name a few examples, all profitted and even still do, from their manipulation and control of others.
If you feel we should do nothing (the US, I believe you referred to), that is your right. But, imo, that is just not right. How about if all these conquerers do is figure out and repay all they have plundered by war and brute force.

posted by BlackGuardXIII

I know two of your posts contained quotes that express views I am critical of. If you are from any of the nations whose colonial, imperialistic actions benefitted their citizens at the expense of those whom they conquered then you have benefitted from the plunder whether or not your immediate family was directly involved. Canada, the US, Britain, France, Spain, to name only a few examples, all profited and many still do from their manipulation and control of others. If you feel we should do nothing (the US, I believe you referred to), that is your right. But, IMO, that is just not right. How about all those conquerors figure out what they have plundered by war and brute force and repay it all?

'You cannot wake someone who is pretending to be asleep." Navajo

'The earth is not their brother, but their enemy. They conquer it and move on. They will devour everything and the earth will become a desert." Chief Seattle [Edited by Don W]

By about 10,000 BCE, there were no white men (or women) living in or native to Africa. Historically, the Greeks were the first whites to conquer part of Africa. They were followed by the Phoenicians (Philistines?) who were then followed by the Romans. The next conquerors were the Arabs followed by the Turks. Which brings my re-counting to Napoleon and 1799. Thus was opened the door to all the Europeans who had been dabbling along the west coast of Africa since the Portugese Henry the Navigator began it in the mid 15th century.

The 19th century saw the great land grab as every European nation sought out territory in Africa. I remember reading once that only Liberia was a free and independent country! Jerrod Diamond’s great book "Guns, Germs and Steel" goes far to explain how it happened and why that Europeans in relatively small numbers were able to lay low larger groups, such as the indomitable Zulus.

If it was up to me, I’d say, Africa for Africans. I’d use a spectrograph to determine the individual's color. All others depart. And I’d give them about 72 hours to be gone. All bank accounts would be frozen. Like Iran I'd impose a 90% exit tax. I’d give their black lackeys even less time, say, 24 hours and take out only what they can carry, gold, jewels and currency excepted. Employees of all foreign corporations above the rank of cooley would be under a death sentence to get out. After 72 hours, shoot on sight. I'd post a $10,000 bounty collectable on showing a pair of white ears. Or $5,000 for 1 ear.

Failing that, we can only lament how whites continue to this day, May 16, 2007, to unconscionably exploit Africans bringing death and destruction on millions of Africans every year and some do it in the name of God! But that’s me.

[edit on 5/16/2007 by donwhite]

I think your solution there is just a bit fanatical, and still quite expesnive, and only continues to destroy. As far as I see it, if people are willing to spend exorbatant amounts of money to either:

1. Ban a group of people from existing in the continent
   
2. OR attempt to end the ability for the indigenous population to reproduce
   

both options of which cause destruction, death, and spread ignorance without fixing any underlying problems, I do not see why people would not be willing to spend an exorbatant sum of money to:

1. Create and Defend institutions of higher education to train the local population to construct and manage their own infrastructure, as well as protect that population from evil dictators doing the bidding of their evil corporate masters
   
2. Subsidize the construction and defense of the infrastructure utilizing the newly educated workforce and building materials from the local area
   
3. subsidizing the creation of free information repositories such as libraries
   

All of which create jobs for the local population, increase the standards of living, spread education and information, and provide the framework for a stable and just society.

When we created our present modern societies, we built them at the cost of atrocious human rights atrocities against the indigenous populations of North and South Ameria, Australia, The South East Pacific and Africa. And yet rather than admit to such and end it now by ceasing all evil activities within the lands that the natives have left, we try and put the blame on them. Unfortunately they did not have the luxury of safe housing, continued free education and developed infrastructure throughout the 19th-21st century. They were too busy being slaughtered and enslaved as people, having the rights to their land taken from them by foreign peoples, attempting to escape and start over only to encounter other evil invaders for the past two centuries.

The exploitation of congo by King Leopold of Belgium was one of the most haneous periods of turmoil in all of Africa. Now instead of a greedy merciless king, we have greedy merciless corporations funding the same atrocities.

That is just one country, and quite a large one at that. How can you expect the people of a land to be civilized, educated, or well fed when instead of developing their culture and infrastructure for the past two centuries like the so called "civilized world" they were subjected to such atrocities in the name of profit and denied all of that which we take for granted?

I think it is time we just suck it up and publicly say " We are sorry, and now we want to help undue what we have done". Just because it may take decades or even a century of action for the next several generations is no excuse to say such an option is merely a dream from la-la-land or inconcieveable. We must do what we can now, and tell our children to continue the process and to never repeat what our ancestors did.

Part of the process will require to reform the denifinitions and rights of any corporation, as well as strictly regulate them on the international level.

Post Removed.

Mod Edit: Courtesy Is Mandatory - Please Review This Link.

Mod Edit: Terms And Conditions Of Use - Please Review This Link.

Mod Edit: How Not To Be Banned From ATS... - Please Review This Link.

[edit on 17-5-2007 by chissler]

Along those lines, external factors in one's situation is acceptable as an obstacle.
Among those lines, idiots should have to be tattooed the forehead, so as to prevent erroneous situations where someone may not recognize them as such.
I have proposed (almost to the point of self-indulgence, coupled with free alcohol) a phrasing of "Too stupid to know it" being the brand incited on idiots.

You see, that way, you don't have to try to figure out what one is saying when they comment to you "and guess what I mean by that".

This would lead to a great reduction of ballasts of beliefs in one who is inept of typical social behaviors.

Originally posted by eyespy2


What do you think?

Would never work, if your lesser citizen population drops then the rich won't be able to enjoy their lives. Who would do all the menial and physical tasks? The jobs you yourself won't do.

Originally posted by donwhite
Employees of all foreign corporations above the rank of cooley would be under a death sentence to get out. After 72 hours, shoot on sight. I'd post a $10,000 bounty collectable on showing a pair of white ears. Or $5,000 for 1 ear.

I don't care if you are speaking hypathetically or postering.. this is just offensive and you should be ashamed. Racial violence and genocide is nothing to joke about.. and joking about whites being killed does not make it somehow more acceptable.

SHOW SOME RESPECT!

And please don't come out with the 'but I'm white so It's okay for me to diss' bs again. It's not.

[edit on 17-5-2007 by riley]

[edit on 17-5-2007 by chissler]

DW. What about the people who have been in Africa for several generations, and happen to be white? They are just as African as any of the darker complexioned ones.

posted by seagull

DW. What about the people who have been in Africa for several generations and happen to be white? They are just as African as any of the darker complexioned ones.

Actually S/G, it is not so much a matter of color - I’m sure there is a liberal mixture of white blood in many Africans of today - as it is a matter of holding a real devotion to an earlier culture. Which whites of any degree of consanguinity are demonstrably unwilling to do. For how long does an interloper remain an interloper - especially if like Frank Sinatra sang, he wants it done his way?

Prior to the 19th century - the advent of white colonialism big time - Africans had evolved a tribal based civilization that while not democratic in the Western sense, was very much open to the expression of opinions on every issue of consequence. I’d say it was “Rule by Consensus”
openly arrived at.

Land or cattle were held in common and as Marx is supposed to have said, “from each based on productivity, to each based on need.” The introduction by force of arms of Western mechanized techniques requiring land boundaries and introducing our (Protestant?) individualistic profit motive in place of group sharing, has given to native Africans the end product of 3,000 years of Western evolution and accommodation, in barely 50-100 years. Africans have not been able or allowed to accommodate old ways to new tools.

The end result is the breakdown of all the old institutions, the near total social chaos among Africans that we whites continue to both encourage and exploit today.

Culture I cannot measure, skin color I can.

posted by Riley

I don't care if you are speaking hypothetically or posturing . . this is just offensive and you should be ashamed. Racial violence and genocide is nothing to joke about . . and joking about whites being killed does not make it somehow more acceptable. SHOW SOME RESPECT! And please don't come out with the 'but I'm white so It's okay for me to diss' bs again. It's not.

Agreed. In general, but not necessarily in particulars. The abuse of corpses practiced by all sides is not a happy thing to contemplate while sitting in the luxury of an air conditioned house surrounded by all the modern conveniences. Air conditioned autos sitting near the curb. And etc. Perhaps if we were squatting in the dirt outside a thatched roof house without indoor plumbing and where even a fan does not work for lack of electricity, we might feel differently?

I am particularly piqued by the degree of tolerance we as a society display towards the needy, especially in Africa, but south of the Rio Grande too. And how we take great reliance in reciting the virtues of Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson to the starving. Did not Jesus mock those who say, “Depart and be not hungry?”

posted by bothered

“ . . external factors in one's situation [are] acceptable as an obstacle . . idiots should be tattooed on the forehead to prevent situations where someone may not recognize them as such. I propose self-indulgence coupled with free alcohol - [getting] too stupid to know it - being the brand on idiots. You see you don't have to figure out what one is saying when they comment to you "and guess what I meant by that." This would lead to a great reduction of beliefs in one who is inept of typical social behaviors.
[Edited by Don W]

I thought my editing would lend both brevity and clarity to your original post, Mr Bothered. But I’m not sure it did. My apology to you if I have left out the most cogent and included the more obtuse. I think you are saying that idiots can be easily recognized by what they say, and that people like me may be more difficult to categorize? Which opinion of yours I may concur with even though I don’t like it.

[edit on 5/17/2007 by donwhite]

Nice job donwhite

Something does have to be done.

What do we do with people that are living in the Middle ages right now. Any help we try to deliver only end up helping their tyrants.

There are only two solutions:

ACompletely ignore them. Can't leave Africa and come to my country, I'm not sending any more aid, either, etc.

B Total help, that may involve many troops from many country's to force civilization on them. Forced Sterilization not a part of this.

The Half ed way its going now won't solve anything.

[edit on 17-5-2007 by Royal76]

Originally posted by donwhite
If it was up to me, I’d say, Africa for Africans. I’d use a spectrograph to determine the individual's color. All others depart. And I’d give them about 72 hours to be gone. All bank accounts would be frozen. Like Iran I'd impose a 90% exit tax. I’d give their black lackeys even less time, say, 24 hours and take out only what they can carry, gold, jewels and currency excepted. Employees of all foreign corporations above the rank of cooley would be under a death sentence to get out. After 72 hours, shoot on sight. I'd post a $10,000 bounty collectable on showing a pair of white ears. Or $5,000 for 1 ear.

Failing that, we can only lament how whites continue to this day, May 16, 2007, to unconscionably exploit Africans bringing death and destruction on millions of Africans every year and some do it in the name of God! But that’s me.

Thats pretty messed up right there donwhite , I have to disagree with your statement.

Humans are notoriously nomadic, if we weren't we would all still be hanging out in the middle east.

I don't know myself if I were to be able to handle the resurrection of scalping in order to ethnically cleanse Africa of other races. Not all the death and destruction going on in Africa is caused by the white man. Not all of the bad things that go on in the world is attributed to one specific race.

I think that ordering people to line up for color analysis is rather crude and racist myself. But hey thats my opinion on the subject.

The whole premise of your argument though, Don, is Africa for Africans; now I may have infered you meant black Africans only. There is probably more than a bit of black blood in alot of the old line white families in various parts of Africa as well. (that didn't come out quite as I meant it to, I intend no offence to anyone)

Africa needs help, that much is true...what that help is, is the question. As I see it there are two ways to do it.

1) Leave them alone, and let them work out the solution for themselves. If the rest of the world can do it. So can they.

The only problem with this is, the rest of the world ain't going to let them alone long enough to do that...that leaves...

2) Go in, the rest of the world, and knock heads together, and make them get their acts together... In other words...civilize them at the point of a gun.

That'll work, sort of...except for the fact that, just guessing here, most Africans aren't going to be grateful, they'll be pissed and alot of them are armed...Pissed off and armed...bad combination.

The only thing that'll save Africa for Africans, or any other land in trouble, is not more handouts, or being occupied, its a leader stepping up and leading them kicking and screaming into the future.

Who that leader will be? I haven't the foggiest notion. I only know that that is the ONLY thing that will truely work...and even that is not a certainty given the outside influences that'll attempt to control anyone who attempts to step up and break the cycle.

posted by seagull

The premise of your argument is Africa for Africans; now I may have inferred you meant black Africans only. Africa needs help, that much is true . . what that help is, is the question. [Edited by Don W]

The “problem” in Africa is much like the “problem” in Iraq. In both cases the dominant group - which only happens to be white Western Euro types - no ugly conspiracy involved - neither have much knowledge of the African's or Iraqis long heritage nor caring much about it either. We are an amalgam of cultures here and assume everyone around the world is like us. Which we think it only follows "naturally" that what we like, they will like. With 3,403 KIA* today, we are leaning the hard way that we had a false premise. *DoD as of 5/17/07. 148 KIA for the UK and 126 KIA "all others." 3,677 KIA total.

I believe there is a dirty story out there about our KIA in Iraq. I believe the Bush43 administration promised any nation that would join up as a coalition force partner, for purely domestic political reasons we'd do the heavy lifting and they would get the easy duty. I believe that.

I don’t mean to imply that all of Africa was idyllic before Prince Henry, but I do mean to say that the message of ‘Guns, Germs and Steel,’ the title of J Diamond’s book, is nearly self explanatory how Euro types managed to subdue Africa - and the Western Hemisphere, too.

The why is not exactly so obvious to the naked eye and is still open to debate. What motivated Cortez and 500 Spanish to conquer 200,000 Aztecs but no Inca or Mayan sailed east to conquer Spain and Portugal?

As I see it there are two ways to do it.
1) Leave them alone, and let them work out the solution for themselves. If the rest of the world can do it. So can they. The only problem with this is, the rest of the world ain't going to let them alone long enough to do that . . that leaves . .

This reminds me of those who are predicting dire consequences in Iraq if we withdraw in short order, such as would resemble the fallout when the likes Genghis Khan meets Attila the Hun. As in the Japanese Godzilla Eats Tokyo. No one is giving Iraqis any credit of being able to resolve their differences with no more blood shed than we spilled here in 1861-1865.

By “rest of the world” you really mean only a very few countries. Right now China and Russia are trying to gain access to the natural resources of Africa and show little or no regard for the death and destruction following in their wake. So what other country in 2007 is capable of interfering in Africa across a broad front? NZ and the ABC of South America are not.

I could name - if I could remember them - or you could name 190 of the 205-210 nations of the world that are not going to interfere in Africa. Well, I guess 50 of those are in Africa. I expect we could both name the one’s we are talking about without naming them.

2) Go in, the rest of the world, and knock heads together, and make them get their acts together . . In other words . . civilize them at the point of a gun.

No. We “go in” only to get all foreigners “out.” Don’t worry. We’ll never do that. Money is too dominant a factor in 2007. Well, it was in 1607 too, so in that regard, we 21st century types are no different from those who came before us. Except that today, we are beginning to see and understand what it was that we have done wrong. We have outlived the "white man's burden" view of the world. Human nature has not changed much since the first artefacts have been found. We have cracked the egg and like Humpty Dumpty, we can’t put it back.

The only thing that'll save Africa for Africans, or any other land in trouble, is not more handouts, or being occupied, it’s a leader stepping up and leading them kicking and screaming into the future . . I only know that is the ONLY thing that will truly work . . and even that is not a certainty . .

That means having a vision. But just what vision? You know S/G, those who write about the looming crisis over population and the exhaustion of the Earth’s capability to sustain life, are thinking about us having to revert to the culture that existed in the late 17th century as maybe the only model that will work for millennia in and millennia out. Example: whereas pneumonia was once described as the old person’s friend because it meant death peacefully and painlessly. Now we can cure pneumonia with two mega doses of penicillin but the old person's social security is going broke and we can’t figure how to feed the man we just saved. Africa in 2007 may be a preview of the Earth in 2107.

You and I are closer than we ever dreamed, S/G.

[edit on 5/17/2007 by donwhite]

I suppose, like most, that deep down we care about the same things, Don. We just differ in the means to the end, sometimes is all. An important difference sometimes, but in the end maybe not so much.

There are very few nations with the power, if not the will, to change things on a global scale. The United States being one, and China the other. Others would like to think they have it, but don't. The will to change things, and by change I mean for the better obviously, is another story. America has been a global power for just about a century, and a player on the global scene for about a century and a half, sometimes I think that as a nation, we're tired, and to solve problems we try the quickest easiest way. Easiest and quickest aren't necessarily the way to go to solve a problem of the magnitude which faces us, humanity, in Africa.

Whatever the solution is, it'll neither be easy, nor quick. It'll, in all likelihood, be bloody, at least at first, and protracted. Leadership, of the enlightened sort, is what is required, who that'll be is open to debate. What is certain, to my mind anyway, he/she will be educated, probably from the southern part of Africa, though not necessarily from RSA, from one of the more powerful, or at least influential, tribes yet not part of the tribe. He/she will be black, obviously. At the very least raised in a household of deeply religious, yet tolerant, parents; faith unimportant. College educated, medicine of somesort, maybe holistic? Married, to someone outside his/her tribal affiliation, maybe a few adopted children from yet another tribe or two. Neither rich, nor poor, a working professional, if you will. It'll have to be someone with incredible personal courage, and the courage of his/her convictions, because he/she isn't going to be real popular. To draw popular support, he/she will have to be able to exude charisma, be a speaker and thinker of uncommon clarity and ideals above reproach are a must. Incorruptable in words and deeds. Say no when neccessary, and back it with what ever force is neccessary, yet also be willing to ask for help as neccessary. THAT, of course, will be the genie in the bottle; once opened...

The key to this whole thing is for someone to step outside the box that is the rampant tribalism in Africa. Once that is achieved, the sky is the limit. Or I could be completely delusional. Which is it?

What is certain, a program of sterilization by whatever means, is not a permanant solution to the very grave problems facing Africa as a whole.



[edit on 18-5-2007 by seagull]

I'm going to tag this thread for those who feel no one would be akin to Global Domination, ie, NWO. The policing through elimination of those deemed unfit falls well within the category of peoples expressing their need for subduing other nations by force.

Surely, through all these processes, one can plainly see there are those with the intent of sacrificing many for their own good.

Of course, you do know that not many lay down and die, because you will it. Trying to stomp on some will in a state of disarray can easily be implanted with farm instruments; i.e., pitchfork aimed squarely at the rump. It's happened throughout the history of mankind. I know I'd sure do it. Feel that way. Sorry if it offends, but I meant that, too.

I'm going to tag this thread for those who feel no one would be akin to Global Domination, ie, NWO. The policing through elimination of those deemed unfit falls well within the category of peoples expressing their need for subduing other nations by force.

Surely, through all these processes, one can plainly see there are those with the intent of sacrificing many for their own good.

Of course, you do know that not many lay down and die, because you will it. Trying to stomp on some will in a state of disarray can easily be implanted with farm instruments; i.e., pitchfork aimed squarely at the rump. It's happened throughout the history of mankind. I know I'd sure do it. Feel that way. Sorry if it offends, but I meant that, too.

Double post to ATS's credit, too much lag.
***This is not a single line post***

This is a mute point. Our world is being so poorly managed. There is absolutly to reason for anyone on Earth to be hungry or thirsty. We have the resources and technology available to become a bountiful, self-sufficiant and full renewable society. The rich and those in power keep the 99% of the world down with its financial boundaries. SLAVERY I TELL YOU!

Humans have the right to children. It is our purpose for life. Who are we to deny this? What person would be chosen to choose when you are rich enough, or tell someone they missed the limit by $2. People cant support children because the rich opress. Liberate the people! Eat the rich (or at least redistribute their wealth).

[edit on (5/18/07) by AllSeeingI]

Originally posted by seagull

Africa needs help, that much is true...what that help is, is the question. As I see it there are two ways to do it.

1) Leave them alone, and let them work out the solution for themselves. If the rest of the world can do it. So can they.

The only problem with this is, the rest of the world ain't going to let them alone long enough to do that...that leaves...

2) Go in, the rest of the world, and knock heads together, and make them get their acts together... In other words...civilize them at the point of a gun.

That'll work, sort of...except for the fact that, just guessing here, most Africans aren't going to be grateful, they'll be pissed and alot of them are armed...Pissed off and armed...bad combination.

The only thing that'll save Africa for Africans, or any other land in trouble, is not more handouts, or being occupied, its a leader stepping up and leading them kicking and screaming into the future.

Point No. 1 is an excellent point so far. but your right the rest of the world won't leave them alone long enough.

Point 2, Well knocking heads together will never work as the rest of the world is funding rebels and supplying Arms to them illegaly and topling governments when they try to recover from the perpetual turmoil (Mark Thatcher ring a bell)
Maybe we should try to stop people from causind unrest in Africa meaning what seems like a systimatic tactic of devide and conquer.

Last point, i could not have said it better myself.

btw great post

posted by Seagull

What is certain, a program of sterilization by whatever means, is not a permanent solution to the very grave problems facing Africa as a whole. [Edited by Don W]

Mr S/G, I offer: No “solution” for anywhere is “permanent” in this world.

posted by AllSeeingI
Humans have the right to children. It is our purpose for life. Who are we to deny this? People can’t support children because the rich oppress. Liberate the people! [Edited by Don W]

Prior to 1500, when the total of humans on earth was probably not over 300 million including the Chinese, the human race had a much smaller impact on the planet. Our “footprint” was small. Even then it was not always smart, but it was small. I say not smart because places like the British Isles cut down all the tall hardwood trees best suited for shipbuilding. Just like the Easter Islanders.

Our earth supported 3 billion people by 1950. Today it is 6.2 billion and by 2020 will be 8 billion even if we give free condoms for life to every boy over 6 years of age. That’s demographics and I do not fully comprehend it. China began it’s one family one child program in 1977 when its population was less than 1 billion. Today, China says the program has worked, although the population is 1.3 billion. (China's population will begin a slow downward trend by 2040).

India, OTOH, which has always lagged behind China - 350 million in 1950 to China’s 400 million, both estimates by Westerners, probably by National Geograpic Magazine - I'm not joking - is now set to surpass China as the most populated country by 2030 at 1.4 or 1.5 billion. China has 3 million + square mile but India has only 900,000. I see trboulbe looming ahead.

Example of population driven conflict. Kashmir which is a sore point with Pakistan, has about 80,000 square miles, and is a uniquely fertile place in mostly arid lands. Pakistan also has too many people and both countries have acquired atom bombs to support their claims on the much need land in Kashmir. And neither India nor Pakistan even look like they have any real interest in giving weight to the wishes of the inhabitants of Kashmir. See UN Charter on the Right of Self Determination and the Four Freedoms of FDR.

I would not say “humans DON’T have a right to children” in 2007, but I will say they cannot breed us out of existence under the guise of exercising some ill-defined or dubious claim of "right." At some point, feeling good must yield to common sense. I like China’s policy. It seems well suited to balance both the desire for children and the need to be able to have space and resources to support the children.

Do not forget the Christian Childrens Fund which avers that 27,000 children die every day from starvation and diseases exacerbated by malnutrition . That sad condition has been going on for decades. We are immune to the suffering this 'starving' necessarily entails. 27,000 dead kids every day. It may (or may not) be true that there is enough food on earth to feed everyone Mr AllSeeingI, bur for sure it is true we have not learned how to distribute food as it is needed. Either way, low production or bad distribution you’re just as dead!

So when do you have to subject a “right” to a “necessity?” Having babies is easy, as we witness everyday. But “raising” children is not so easy. We offer much vocal (and legal) support for “having” babies but we fall far short in supporting the longer and more difficult aspect, “raising” them. Is there not a place somewhere here for exercising responsibility? Or are we much like a chimpanzee and just copulate for the fun of it unaware of the inevitable consequences of too much fun? Or should we not use the brains God or Darwin gave us?

It is my opinion we have not assigned proper priorities to our children’s welfare, which after all, is our own welfare, 2 or 3 generations removed. I used this following as my signature: Children are our future. Children are our guests. No child asked to be here, we invited them. We owe our children. They do not owe us. We pay that debt by leaving the world a better place than we found it.

[edit on 5/18/2007 by donwhite]