Were American negroes still being opressed in 20th century or were they uplifted by the white society?
Is it not true that in Africa they would live a primitive life and under a harsher rule of their king? Is it not true that that filling their belly would be a much harder task there?
I see no opression just inequality.
Other urls found in this thread:
en.m.wikipedia.org
en.m.wikipedia.org
en.m.wikipedia.org
academia.edu
nytimes.com
lifezette.com
twitter.com
5'10 on the right
>White society
What white society? Italians and Irish were huge ethnic groups despite not being considered white for decades. You can't just say "they're better off here" because without western powers Africa would be much different, so we don't really know if they'd be better off. And even though American blacks live better than most Africans that doesn't excuse literally rounding people up like cattle and forcing them to work.
It seems to me like you are just copypasting something from a book or something.
>because without western powers Africa would be much different,
Yeah people would be still living in small tribes, practicing vodoo and hunting animals with wooden spears.
If they wish to go a back to the times before civilization they can do that anytime.
A lot of black americans are descendent from blacks that came to America much much earlier than the scramble for Africa.
I was talking about 20th century. Rounding them up? They were bought from African slave traders.
They would be killed or forced into slavery by other blacks.
Well there's still plenty of tribes doing that, so they apparently did a pretty shitty job.
It would be a pretty shitty book.
Yes the colonized parts of Africa turned out better than the non colonized ones.
Colonization improved Africa and the current Africans benefit from the said colonization.
Mind pointing out where on this map isn't colonized?
Maybe i should write a book.
I am sick of the lie that blacks would be better off today if they never came across British Portugese and other Europeans.
Hell even if they were allowed to govern themselves for 200 years like the blacks in Haiti they would end up worse off than they are today.
I'm not going to comment on anything else that you said, but I'd like to make a point that a substantial portion of the global population practices some form of the voodoo religion. In some areas of Africa of course, South America, Central America and the Carribean, and North America. It's not typically open to outsiders and most of the tradition is passed down orally, but just so you know, it has a presence in the modern day.
Wow white people improved entire Africa especially the parts where they mass migrated to.
They have proven the world that blacks lived on a great land but were too incompetent to do anything with it.
If you replaced Africans with Europeans Africa would be better off than Europe
Just look at South Africa. How much did whites do in just a few decades of hard work? Same with Zimbabwe.
If Africa was colonized there would be no starving African children. Why are we not behind improving Africa?
They were becoming more and more privileged.
Obama passed the border of white-black equalitiy.
They were still oppressed. You still had segregation, denial of entry into institutions of education, and you had the KKK. Arguably, they weren't slaves anymore, but as a people they were still oppressed.
i don't know how you could say that jim crow laws weren't oppression. the constitution gave all citizens certain rights, and they didn't have some of them. I could care less if blacks are generally poorer, their political rights should line up with what the government promises.
Yeah, because apartheid and segregation within those institutions and the denial of education REALLY helped.
>too incompetent
>implying they weren't hindered
May surprise you to know, but Africans did have civilisations. On top of that any effort of sustainable self management was often undermined.
Case and point
en.m.wikipedia.org
>segregation
How the hell is that opression? So blacks are opressed when they can't live near whites and yet whites are opressing them?
They could also make their own institutions under more favorable options than in Africa. Again not opression
But segregation is what they want even now.
>tax everybody equally
>provide different access to public services and political institutions
>not oppression
Denial of education? Being educated for free in white schools is not opression.
Segreggation is not opression. SA had lower crime rates under white rule and a better living standard. Also the entire country was mainly built by whites.
>Again not opression
You're making up your own definition now and completely ignoring the actual consequences of such segregation, bet you're the kind of snowflake that bitches about white genocide every now and then.
>SA had lower crime rates under white rule
Objectively untrue, unless you're retarded enough to believe that apartheid was ceased magically.
>tax everybody equally
progressive tax is not equal
>Case and point
>en.m.wikipedia.org
Is this the earliest case of black civilization you can find? 1980's? I am not even going to read that.
Show me blacks before white influence and trade.
the issue with separate but equal was it wasn't equal. black neighborhoods were the shittier ones. the new suburbs built after WWII for GI's were exclusively for whites. it's hard to improve your economic situation when your opportunies are limited. the bus segregation for example was a bit more than this part is for blacks and this part is for whites. should a white person need a seat they could force a black person to stand up. this is the spirit that all of segregation was done in. I would have no issue with segregation in principle if it did actually follow the concept of separate but equal
>apartheid never happened
>they was gud bois who dindu nuffin
>a black man earning 20 grand a year would get taxed less than a white man earning 20 grand a year
Now this is shitposting.
The consequences of not being allowed to live near whites? Just listen to yourself admitting that blacks need white masters to live well.
And i thought liberals were not racist.
I wonder why segreggation never hurts whites
Violence caused by blacks in a war like manner. Is that your argument now?
Yes blacks ruined the peace that existed under apartheid.
>Create a country from nothing
>Blacks demand to be equal in everything even after taking no part of its creation
That was more of a case of interference when blacks wanted self autonomy and not be governed by colonialism
Here
en.m.wikipedia.org
en.m.wikipedia.org
>literally making shit up
It was the consequences of being denied education and access to institutions because you weren't white you spastic.
>Blacks literally destroyed several of their suburbs in riots.
>Expect more money to be given so they can destroy more
Inequality is not opression. Blacks were better off under inequality than alone
Yes, because the police weren't treating them like shit and isolating them to live in shitty conditions now, were they? :^)
academia.edu
No such thing as denying education. Whites do not owe educating blacks in their buildings.
No they werent. Its a lie based on no proof to justify blacks stealing from whites.
Just about anyone can make lies and outrageous claims. If Germans won they could claim that they were opressed by jews.
Same way the blacks justify their thieft and violence. They always use baseless excuses and it is never their fault.
If they were better off then why did they riot? Could it be perhaps that they weren't better off?
>inb4 niggers always riot
I don't see riots in Seychelles, Gabon or Botswana. :^)
The one thing that can be proven is that South Africa was less violent under the white rule
>literal proof that they were oppressed
>L-lies
>rejecting evidence this hard
nytimes.com
They still riot in USA today including France and Britain.
You cannot prove me that France opresses blacks. They had no idea how bad life in Africa is so they felt opressed.
The proof is some UN official saying so
>We built this school on your land with your resources
>you can't come though lol
I only see North African and Arabs rioting in France
lifezette.com
So you're wrong blacks rioting in France.
Also nice shifting of the goal posts there m8.
As for African Americans, I'll admit, I'm no fan of BLM, but considering most of these people have higher concentrations of single motherhood rates, a more prone to lead poisoning which fucks with your brain, and as a demographic more likely to live in poverty, and being fed lies by the liberal media (saint michael brown the friendly giant my ass) yeah no shit.
>the same UN which covers human rights abuses in North Korea
Does that mean we should support North Korea? Nice poisoning the well there, faggot.
>the entire country mainly built by whites
lol
>colonize Africans and disposses them of land
>attract them to the cities (townships really), away from their tribal leaders and families
>entice them into exploitative gold mine work on a mass scale
>pay them trash wages and make them live away from the nice white neighbourhoods
>loads of stray young men of differing tribes away from their homes, alone in the cities/townships running around drinking because they're not really allowed/cannot afford to do much else for recreation
>use the gold extracted by these miserable brutes to prosper
Yes, it was the white man who built the country on the backs of its exploited natives. All white guilt arguments and accusations aside this is absolutely undeniable
>wooden spears
>West Africa was in the Iron Age by 500BC, possibly earlier according to some old finds in Nigeria
>Most of them were farmers and pastoralists (look up African rice)
>Spanish Guinea
Between 1778 and 1810, Spain administered the territory of Equatorial Guinea via its colonial Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata, based in Buenos Aires (in present-day Argentina). Its Argentine clay we should try invading here, genocide the native population and called it New Uruguay, nobody would care honestly
>Frederick "Flaco" Forsyth
>asking what happened in the 20th century
Forget about the current events rule, this kind of question should get an under age ban
Excuses: the post.
You whine about segregation and poor treatment of blacks by whites yet fail to address the elephant in the room, that blacks had not even developed their own formal educational system outside of oral tradition. You are the type of person to see a society uplifted by western civilisation and then criticise the fact that not every single peasant and farmer lives on the same level as the richest section of recent, white immigrations.
The oppression of blacks was often in Africa not that oppressive as much of the population under colonial rule were simply ignored. The idea of whites having their whip and rifle on hand over the hands of every man, woman and child is ludicrous.
There is also only so much you can expect from a colonial power itself colonising in the 19th or earlier moving into an area barely into the iron age. It takes many generations for a culture to adapt to such large scale and total change as was brought to Africa by Europeans. The entire colonial period was not sufficient in mere time alone to transform the native population into a population capable of functioning at a western level. Cultural change as well as economic had to occur for the Africans and if it had occurred by the time the Europeans left Africa, we would see countries with western level development there now. But we don't do we? There's only so much you can blame Europeans for when they have not been present as colonial powers for many decades now.
Nice a black guy with no self awareness who thinks he's above it all.
Lol at this board falling for an obvious bait post.
It literally checks the list for a Veeky Forums bait post and you sad fucks fall for it