Modern-Day Enhancement Mod:

You could consider this as a modern day Greece city list:

Athina, Thessaloniki, Patra, Irakleio, Volos, Larissa, Lamia, Alexandroupoli, Kavala, Xanthi, Drama, Hania, Rodos, Ermoupoli, Grevena, Igoumenitsa, Kerkyra, Korinthos, Amfissa, Agrinio, Rethymno, Katerini, Thiva, Leivadia, Tripoli, Nayplio, Argos, Pyrgos, Sparti, Naypaktos.

As a first idea.
 
I Suggest combining , England , Nothern Island , Scotland and Wales IN the U.K Or Britain , And renaming The celts to Ireland ( Southern Irish ) or Eire .

@Androrc , Why is you sig so comically stupid? i dont want to turn this into a political thread But those parts of UK have more self rule than england does at the moment. English Mps have no say In Alot of policys in scotland like health and education . Wales has a similar but smaller parliment , and when nothern island is without troubles then they have thier own parliment too , England however dosnt have any form of regionalised parliment so scottish mps can have there say on matters that only affect england ( and sometimes wales) about issues such as tution fees.

If thereis to be an Independent scottland , ireland and wales in the mod then please leave england as it is , as the UK is all parts of the island together ( without Eire [Southern Island] )
 
Originally posted by drSiN

@Androrc , Why is you sig so comically stupid? i dont want to turn this into a political thread But those parts of UK have more self rule than england does at the moment. English Mps have no say In Alot of policys in scotland like health and education . Wales has a similar but smaller parliment , and when nothern island is without troubles then they have thier own parliment too , England however dosnt have any form of regionalised parliment so scottish mps can have there say on matters that only affect england ( and sometimes wales) about issues such as tution fees.

I support the idea that each people should govern themselves entirely. I could put lots of more places in that list, but it would be too big. So I decided to put just UK's ones. Scotland, Wales and Ireland were conquered by England, and they deserve freedom as much as Ireland or any other place. If the British Empire gave freedom to many of it's conquests then why didn't it give freedom to Scotland, Wales and Ireland(which had to have an army to get it's freedom) too?

Also, if you don't want this thread to turn into a political one, you could have PMed me. You didn't.
 
Where are you from? , if your british id be suprised


Anyway Scotland was never conquered by england , the two countries came under one monarch , james I ( the scottish king) when queen elizebeth died , the majority of northern ireand would like to stay with the UK ( the protastants would prefer to be " part of" england becuase this was / is a protistant country , this is why the problems are happening today becuase a small amout of catholics were left in nothern island when the split happened) thats why when ireland split from the uk in the early 20th century nothern island remained part of the British Empire. Im not quite sure how wales came to be part of the UK but they were proabably conqured quite a while back.

To be honest the countrys work together becuase it benifits us , not becuase there being subjicated in anyway the countrys work so close together now its hard to see how places like wales , and nothern island would survive on there own , not becuase they dont know how to but there so small that it would be so difficult

as for it becoming a political debate thread i dont think it matters , as this kind of justifies why i think england n.Ireland scotland and whales should be the UK and the Celts should be renaming to the irish to form the modern state of Eire

Im not sure if you think this (it isnt quite clear) if you think S.Ireland needed an army to break from british rule your quite wrong there was a revolt that started in 1916 ( i think) , the british were treating the irish rather badly and crushed the rebellion , killing many of its leaders , but the irish carried on the campagn and in the early 20's negotiations came to the conclusion that 70 odd irish counties broke away from britain to form eire. ( england was no longer able to afford to "keep" southern ireland due the the costs of the 1st WW)
 
Originally posted by drSiN
Where are you from? , if your british id be suprised


Anyway Scotland was never conquered by england , the two countries came under one monarch , james I ( the scottish king) when queen elizebeth died , the majority of northern ireand would like to stay with the UK ( the protastants would prefer to be " part of" england becuase this was / is a protistant country , this is why the problems are happening today becuase a small amout of catholics were left in nothern island when the split happened) thats why when ireland split from the uk in the early 20th century nothern island remained part of the British Empire. Im not quite sure how wales came to be part of the UK but they were proabably conqured quite a while back.

To be honest the countrys work together becuase it benifits us , not becuase there being subjicated in anyway the countrys work so close together now its hard to see how places like wales , and nothern island would survive on there own , not becuase they dont know how to but there so small that it would be so difficult

as for it becoming a political debate thread i dont think it matters , as this kind of justifies why i think england n.Ireland scotland and whales should be the UK and the Celts should be renaming to the irish to form the modern state of Eire

Im not sure if you think this (it isnt quite clear) if you think S.Ireland needed an army to break from british rule your quite wrong there was a revolt that started in 1916 ( i think) , the british were treating the irish rather badly and crushed the rebellion , killing many of its leaders , but the irish carried on the campagn and in the early 20's negotiations came to the conclusion that 70 odd irish counties broke away from britain to form eire. ( england was no longer able to afford to "keep" southern ireland due the the costs of the 1st WW)

What about the IRA? Aren't you forgetting this 'little' detail? And England not being able to keep southern Ireland, that's not true. The British had an enormous empire, yet they couldn't keep a tiny island like Ireland? That doesn't make sense. Also, about them being small, so are many countries, like Holland and Switzerland, yet they thrived. Also, IMHO the Celts should unite in one nation like the Germans did(well, except for Austria). About Ulster: Well, many of those people aren't really Irish, they are English that migrated to Northern Ireland, having special privileges. They are not the rightful owners of that land and so should go back to where they came from, England. About Scotland, sorry, my information wasn't accurate:(.

I know English people don't like the idea of the separation of the Celtic regions as much as the Spanish don't like the separation from the Basque/Catalonian regions, but both must eventually happen. They are different people, therefore they deserve different nations.
 
Originally posted by Androrc


What about the IRA? Aren't you forgetting this 'little' detail? And England not being able to keep southern Ireland, that's not true. The British had an enormous empire, yet they couldn't keep a tiny island like Ireland? That doesn't make sense. Also, about them being small, so are many countries, like Holland and Switzerland, yet they thrived. Also, IMHO the Celts should unite in one nation like the Germans did(well, except for Austria). About Ulster: Well, many of those people aren't really Irish, they are English that migrated to Northern Ireland, having special privileges. They are not the rightful owners of that land and so should go back to where they came from, England. About Scotland, sorry, my information wasn't accurate:(.

I know English people don't like the idea of the separation of the Celtic regions as much as the Spanish don't like the separation from the Basque/Catalonian regions, but both must eventually happen. They are different people, therefore they deserve different nations.

The breakup of the british empire began in 1942. The situation with holland and switzland is entierly different , they havnt been part of any union of countries , The countires in UK have become Co-dependant on each other. the IRA ( they couldnt of been an army during the fights in the early 1920sbecuase i think they were formed during the troubles of the 60's and after) so i fail to see the point in bringing them into the disccusion as the IRA's views dont represent Most of northern islands views , and im sure the people on the other side of the arguement would be annoyed to hear that it seemed that way ( it would be like saying al-queda represented the views of the entire muslim world)

The migration rates from England to Ireland are reletivly low compared with the Irish imigration stats.

Another point Saying that englishmen have special rank or privilages in northern ireland , is a bit over the top . a few hundered years ago , well even 80 odd years ago this may have been the truth , but it allmost surely isnt the truth nowdays.

You seem to have the impression that england is a colonial power still , the fact is that the colonies we have left amount to not much more than the falklands (lol) and when the empire was being created it wasnt just english troops , buissnessmen and statesmen ruling the world it was scottish , welsh and to an extent irishmen.

And you speak on behalf of the irish scots and welsh , yet you seem to come from Brazil , on what basis do you assume that the people in these countries wish to be seperate? In the UK (maybee not N.Ireland but im not the person to speak for them) there seems to be a consensus that the countrys will do better together than apart , while still keeping thier individual heritidge.

I cant speak on behalf on everybody but maybee somepeople from other regions of the UK can back me up?
 
Originally posted by drSiN


The breakup of the british empire began in 1942. The situation with holland and switzland is entierly different , they havnt been part of any union of countries , The countires in UK have become Co-dependant on each other. the IRA ( they couldnt of been an army during the fights in the early 1920sbecuase i think they were formed during the troubles of the 60's and after) so i fail to see the point in bringing them into the disccusion as the IRA's views dont represent Most of northern islands views , and im sure the people on the other side of the arguement would be annoyed to hear that it seemed that way ( it would be like saying al-queda represented the views of the entire muslim world)

The migration rates from England to Ireland are reletivly low compared with the Irish imigration stats.

Another point Saying that englishmen have special rank or privilages in northern ireland , is a bit over the top . a few hundered years ago , well even 80 odd years ago this may have been the truth , but it allmost surely isnt the truth nowdays.

You seem to have the impression that england is a colonial power still , the fact is that the colonies we have left amount to not much more than the falklands (lol) and when the empire was being created it wasnt just english troops , buissnessmen and statesmen ruling the world it was scottish , welsh and to an extent irishmen.

And you speak on behalf of the irish scots and welsh , yet you seem to come from Brazil , on what basis do you assume that the people in these countries wish to be seperate? In the UK (maybee not N.Ireland but im not the person to speak for them) there seems to be a consensus that the countrys will do better together than apart , while still keeping thier individual heritidge.

I cant speak on behalf on everybody but maybee somepeople from other regions of the UK can back me up?

Oh, no, I didn't mean at all the englishmen still have privileges in northern Ireland, but they had, and still are the ones who hold wealth and power over there. Also, about me being Brazil, don't you know Brazil is a multi-cultural nation? Like there were irishmen and scottishmen in USA, so do they exist in Brazil also. But anyways, I see this conversation is quite pointless...and it should never have been started. My signature should not be discussed on some random post, but in a PM and perhaps in the off topic forums. Anyway, you dare to say there are no separationist movements in Scotland? I may be a Brazilian, but you are an English, and you speak for the ruler, not the ruled. Also, I'm not saying they work better together or not, I'm saying they should be given full freedom and work together through the European Union, not through a foreign ruler.
 
"and you speak for the ruler, not the ruled"

You dont really understand , my points show that there is no independant ruler. Scotish , Irish , Welsh , Or englishmen living abroad should harldy have a say about what happens in there own countys if living abroad contiunlly ( specially if there heratidge goes back over generations )

I dont speak for anyone but myself i mearly imply that the impression is that people would rather live IN a UK rather than sperate , otherwise the votes for the SDP and Pliad cymru ( sorry about spelling) would be much higher (those partys are both nationalist parties and have a policy of leaving the UK should they ever be voted in). there are also partys in england who want to be seperate and consider themselves ruled by scotland

I spose youd really have to live in the UK to understand how it works.

If You want to ask any questions id be happy to answer but i think i better end this here
 
Ahm... BAck to the mod....

Originally posted by oiled snake


Brasília is not a jungle or something like that, it's almost like a desert. Ask to Petrucio.

For half of the year is dry like a desert in here, but in the other half its very rainy. The best terrain for Brasília would be lots of plains and water, and some forests, with no marsh. Also, take out all those mountains in south america, leave only the Andes..

And the leaders, it would be best to rename al of them, great leaders, leader heads and sience leaders.

...

:confused: And about all this discussion over the UK... I ask Androrc why should diferent people have diferent nations? I´m surprised to see a Brazilian saying that. I wonder how bloody it would be If we decided to divide Brazil between all the populations that live in here.... I dont think it would be a good idea for anyone.
 
Originally posted by Petrucio666
Ahm... BAck to the mod....



For half of the year is dry like a desert in here, but in the other half its very rainy. The best terrain for Brasília would be lots of plains and water, and some forests, with no marsh. Also, take out all those mountains in south america, leave only the Andes..

And the leaders, it would be best to rename al of them, great leaders, leader heads and sience leaders.

...

:confused: And about all this discussion over the UK... I ask Androrc why should diferent people have diferent nations? I´m surprised to see a Brazilian saying that. I wonder how bloody it would be If we decided to divide Brazil between all the populations that live in here.... I dont think it would be a good idea for anyone.

Shouldn't Minas Gerais have mountains? Or am I mistaken?

About the UK thing: Here the people are mixed. In UK their territory is already separated inside itself...I just see no reason for them not to be different nations, perhaps cooperating with England through the UE or another union, except that England doesn't want to give up those territories. In Europe, the peoples don't mix much, so they have all those etnies. So, if the eastern european ones have their own nations why can't the western european ones like the Basques, Scottish, Welsh and Irish have too?
 
I think that you should rename Norway (or Scandinavis) into Denmark. Norway have been under danish and swedish rule for a loong time, they godt their freedom fore abaut 100 years ago.
And nowadays denmark is has much more unfluence than norway, beeing a part of EU and so...
 
Originally posted by POLM
I think that you should rename Norway (or Scandinavis) into Denmark. Norway have been under danish and swedish rule for a loong time, they godt their freedom fore abaut 100 years ago.
And nowadays denmark is has much more unfluence than norway, beeing a part of EU and so...

IMHO it should be Sweden, because it has more influence than Denmark...Although Denmark is an interesting choice.
 
Originally posted by Smellincoffee
CuBicle: an updated city list for Greece would be great. I knew it would need updating, as I had the feeling most Greek cities were colonies sprinkled around the Med. I was going to redo it, same as I did Egypt, but for some reason I couldn't work up the will to spend a few more hours peering at a map. :lol: I planned to redo it later, but between the updates I've quite forgotten. Any help would be appreciated.

I'm trying to compile more information to make 2.6 a bit more fleshed out than this. Brazilian and Australian leaders, for one. I was thinking of making the Brazilian leader Vargas, due to the fact that there's a leaderhead of him at CFC. :)

(Hmm, two people so far have made their first post in this thread. :goodjob: )

To help with you research for Australian leaders I have some suggestions:

Political Leaders

Arthur Phillip (First Governor of New South Wales (pre-federation)
Lachlan Macquarie (Governor of New South Wales (pre-federation) and "Father of Australia")
Edmund Barton (First Prime Minister)
Sir Samuel Griffith (Premier of Queensland and prominant statesperson around Federation)
Billy Hughes (WWI Prime Minister)
John Curtain (WWII Prime Minister)
Robert Menzies (WWII Prime Minister and longest serving Australian Prime Minister)

I haven't included any who are still alive as the jury of history is still out on whether they are/were good enough or not.

Military Leaders

General Peter Cosgrove (Modern - East Timor)
Field Marshall Sir William Slim (WWI and WWII)
General John Monash (WWI)
Sir Harry Chauvel (WWI)

Scientific Leaders

Douglas Mawson (Antarctic explorer)
Sir Frank Burnet (Father of Immunology)
Dame Jean Macnamara (Pioneer of Polio research)
Howard Florey (Nobel Prize winner for developing Penicillin)
Victor Chang (Heart Surgeon - Transplant pioneer in Australia).

I hope this is of some use to you.
:)
 
Thanks, it is indeed. :)
 
Brasília is not a desert! The climate of Brasília is dry during half of the year, but we don't have deserts of anything like that..
We don't have marsh, jungle, swamp. We don't have many grasslands, we buy food from other cities. Forests, plains e some hills would be great. Actually it's "cerrado" instead of forests. :)

About Mountains: in Brazil (not brasilia) we have a lot of mountains, but they are not like the Andes :) If they are important to put on a map or not it's up to you.

At www.civ3.com.br, brazilians choosed Dom Pedro II as the the leader. But there are many others too!

Brasileiro
 
Dom Pedro II is not an modern leader. Put perhaps Vargas, (Although I'd likely to put Jucelino Kubichec. He did Brasilia after all).

The mountains we have around here are not of greater importance although very beautifull and turisticly attractive, they are not like the andes. I suppose the mountains represented in the game should be really higher than most of ours. Rio is a mountain surrounded city, but if you go to Santiago del Chile, i'll notice the diference. It's HUGE. I've been in both and I can say, we have nothing as that. Although, perhaps, Northeast Sertão (that's a desert, for non-brazilians people) could be well represented with mountains (the borborema's, which help keeping the Sertão rainless and isolate it from the rest of the terrain) and desert. I could think of a long list of scientific and cultural leaders and I might post that later if you need that.

And at least to say my thoughts on that U.K thing...
Er... If you live in England you will know what the lady there is talking about. Really. And, er, talking about Rulers view point... are you not forgeting something?
Mixed? That's the dominators speech. Ask all the back people in the Favela (and YES, they are mostly black, anywhere, any city.; It's like the ghettos but now we can blame then for it not ourselves), ask to any one in the south about any people from the north/northeast. Gosh, ask to any good old indian. They are being destroyed as we speak (most of them being already extinct). So enough of mixed people, that is something not yet achieved, work on progress. We may be mixed but our people never answers "I'm black" when asked by the Census' guy. Our skin may not be that milky white but it's far to hard for our media to reckognize any black beauty. Or indian either.
Just to remind you, in the south region there are separatist ideas yet, and possibly will grow if economy goes downhills again. They are, after all, very productive and most of what they make goes to southeast/northeast reagions and they fell like they are losing something. No once can blame them, actually. They even have a diferent ethinic goup (less slaves there, more cheap italian/german workers. No great mixing in there -- or at least, a very european mix).
You are right. About Rulers speech and all that. You can't even realize when you do exactly what you accuse others to. But, well, you are wrong when you speak of more separatist in U.K. other than IRA. And, well, I don't think it's worth breaking up U.K. and Spain/france to open space to smaller groups when what seems to be happening know is to start uniting europe as one, or am I wrong? Besides, if you can think of the U.S. as one exemple as a mixed state of union, apply then in the U.K. scenary. Try to thing of it as United States more than Colonies of the big bad empire. North Ireland, that's a point. Not the rest of it. As a matter of fact, U.K. and U.S. both works like you said. There is no unit in U.S. as you seem to suggest. Black people lives in black neighbourhouds, Asian people in asian neighbourhouds... It's not as mixed as you seem to expect, and it works fine in some level, so why can't U.K. be alike?
Wow, I spoke a lot on this did I not? Sorry. Just couldn't hold myself.
 
Originally posted by Komori
Mixed? That's the dominators speech. Ask all the back people in the Favela (and YES, they are mostly black, anywhere, any city.; It's like the ghettos but now we can blame then for it not ourselves), ask to any one in the south about any people from the north/northeast. Gosh, ask to any good old indian. They are being destroyed as we speak (most of them being already extinct). So enough of mixed people, that is something not yet achieved, work on progress. We may be mixed but our people never answers "I'm black" when asked by the Census' guy. Our skin may not be that milky white but it's far to hard for our media to reckognize any black beauty. Or indian either.

Actually there ae only 6% of blacks in Brazil, with 55% white and 38% mixed, and 1% of others. They aren't really black in the favelas, they're mixed. Unless you define Camila Pitanga as black.


You are right. About Rulers speech and all that. You can't even realize when you do exactly what you accuse others to. But, well, you are wrong when you speak of more separatist in U.K. other than IRA. And, well, I don't think it's worth breaking up U.K. and Spain/france to open space to smaller groups when what seems to be happening know is to start uniting europe as one, or am I wrong? Besides, if you can think of the U.S. as one exemple as a mixed state of union, apply then in the U.K. scenary. Try to thing of it as United States more than Colonies of the big bad empire. North Ireland, that's a point. Not the rest of it. As a matter of fact, U.K. and U.S. both works like you said. There is no unit in U.S. as you seem to suggest. Black people lives in black neighbourhouds, Asian people in asian neighbourhouds... It's not as mixed as you seem to expect, and it works fine in some level, so why can't U.K. be alike?
Wow, I spoke a lot on this did I not? Sorry. Just couldn't hold myself.

No, it doesn't work very fine. The USA is one of the most racist nations in the world(both ways - just see it, there are almost no whites in black tv shows and almost no blacks in white tv shows). The people of asian and latin american origin aren't treated very well also. We are much less racist than USA, but Brazilians seem to like to thing that Brazil is just worse in everything than USA. In Brazil, unfortunately, people have prejudice against the poor. In USA they have both against the poor and blacks, asians, latin americans, etc. You see in USA blacks weren't allowed into many places not too much time ago, and although the situation has become better now, the racism still exists. Any people - any - that aren't European or Statamerican, are considered inferior.
 
Now, this is really going to turn on a political post

Question: Do you live in Rio? Or in Bahia?
In other places what you say is parcially truth, although not much.
The rich are milky skinners, the poors are mulatos and black. You got the point.
Ok, the prejudice IS against the poor (isn't anywhere?) But who is poor? Who did our society threw into poorness? Ex slaves who owned nothing but themselves? Indians and indian descendants who worked as very cheap work-force or worse, were simply eliminated when the white man needed the land they were occuping?

Another thing, I don't thing the U.S. is better than brazil and their last presidencial election should prove that. They have their problems, and somethings, it's pretty much like ours. I just suggested you to apply the exemple you suggested and use it there. Political, not racial stuff, actually.

But back to the point...
Who is the poor in brazil?
I AM brazilian. Proudly mixed. White, indian AND black. I am the perfect sample of that idea of yours am I not?
Well, I am confortable, not rich, not poor, middle class preciselly. I live in rio. Do you know Rio? Well... northeast regions tend to be closer to your mixed paradise in racial theory... they really are. I come from there. But thing again. Who is the maid in the house? Who cleans the streets? I don't see white people there. But I see white (mixed, but, mostly, white, and, hm, like I am, actually) people shopping in malls and walking away if they see a black boy comming in their direction. Of course, if the boy dresses expensive cloathing, they will not do that. But how many blacks/dark skinned use expensive cloathing?
We have some mix... but who is rich? We, closer-to-white skin or them, dark skinned?
C'mon, name the city you live in, I want to move to this racial paradise.
By the way, we don't have only 6% black people. We have only 6% with the balls to come out and say "I am Black". I would say so, but people would probably laugh at me. Do you know Census? You know what they do? They provide you that data you just quoted. At an interval of 4 or 5 years they entreview a number of randomic families. One of the questios is about your skin color. You know how you can answer that? You know how people answered that? No one goes to say I'm Black. People are embarassed with it. People answers absurds like "cor de café" and such. Spare me if you say our centuries as slavers did not left ANY mark. Not one?

You know Camila Pitanga? If I recall correctly it was she who, in an interwiew, told that once a woman came tor her and said "why is it that you keep saying you are black? You're such a beautifull woman. You can say you're morena, your skin is so clear". That says all doesn't it? But I can give you another exemple. A famous model, girlfriend to Guga (the tennis player) by that time, went to Pernambuco (that's northeastean region, for all those non brazilian *not?* reading this) and in an interwiew to the local Globo Tv said "Northeastean people are not much beautifull. Must be the black ascendence right?" With that words (actually that was both stupid and erroneous. Pernambuco has strong indian presence and small african, but..). On a tv show. Do you get my point?

We are not any more tolerant than americans. Our violence simply acts in ways much better than theirs. It is invisible. We create a perfect racist state. Because whenever some one goes out and say "brazil is racist" there is always the argument "how can we be racist, we are a mix?". We are racists. We avoid black boys in the street (and not nescessarily the ones that live in the streets, but now that you came with that... how many of those are black?). We do not need you to prove that you are 100% white. There is no problem if you are a bit mixed here and there... everyone has flaws. The important is that you didn't get the bad aspects of those races, like lazyness (for indians, that northeasteans got that by heritage) or intelectual failures (for black). Ok, may be I exagereted it a bit here. But you can't tell it isn't so. It is a fact. How many people in private school is of black/indian mixes? How about in the public schools?

The black ones are the better. They even got to be included inthe society. As work force and inferior race. But part of it. The indians are simply killed and expelled from land our government gives them the right to.

Which religion is respected and which is ridicularized? Christian ones or Umbanda?

Look, for this Racial Paradise we say we have achieved, we need equal chances for all the ethinies, so that they can actually mix other than by rape or abuse of power (which IS most of our mix history, and I can prove it in my own family, and guess what? not so many genarations ago. Right there, my great-grandmother(spl?). A pure exemple of that. Abused indian girl). Do you see equal chances? Are you black or indian? Because if you are, and you do not agree with me, I ask you to kindly desconsider that you are a middle-class, possible upper-class (internet access? computer?) young fellow and think like that: Slavism has just ended. You were born free but your mother wasn't. She has nowhere to live, so she goes to this place where all now-freed slaves are building their small homes (that would later become know as favela) with no sanitarization and no descent urban planning... No help from government (who merely realeased you, so be thankful and try to survive that) and a son to take care of. How would she pay your education? Gosh, how would she pay your food? So she goes back to her old master and go back to a very close life-style that she used to had, but now instead of getting food for ir, she get a penny. And an italian worker does it for no less than let's say, 2 dolars. What kind of school can she pay you with that? What kinda work will you find without a good school? Do you understand the circle here? We are, what... 5, 6 generations from slaves? I think that's pretty accurate for me. And I am young. Changes come too slow. Actually, in northeast there is still some (illegal) enslavement, do I recall it correctly? It was on tv, not long ago.

So ok, maybe we don't pay bad the black people. We pay bad those with poor education. Who are those, again?
Who cannot pay for a good education? Those who were slaves and were given no condition to gain any more respect? Only now they can't be beaten. That's wrong. They are same as you. But look, they can't be as smart and good-working as you. But that's ok, we care about them anyway and will treat them as friends ^^

Look, get a rich blackman and ask him. Simply ask him how many times high-society people did look odd at him until they got used with the idea?

Ask Camila Pitanga.

Well, I think I took long enough.
Hope you understand.
 
Yes, I must agree with you on all that. Yes, I live in Rio, but I got irritated because I thought you meant you said USA had less racism than Brazil. I do believe, that if we did set a socialist state and therefore removed poverty, prejudice would be pretty much gonein a few generations, unless there was monopolization of power by whites. Most prejudice is against poorer people, like the western Germans and the eastern Germans, western Europe and the Slav nations, Slavs and Asians and the Dutch and the Africans in South Africa.

My problem with USA's racism is because it's going through the worst way: blacks have prejudice against whites and whites have prejudice against blacks, which instead of truly resolving the problem, it just finds a way for blacks to not be living so badly, but does not unite society, and instead creates some rivalry(as in rich blacks only giving blacks jobs and rich whites only giving whites jobs).
 
Back
Top Bottom