North Korea at night....

[Pasi Nurminen]

To people on these forums? That's just my online persona.

 

[ironduck]

Elaborate.

You strike me as being cynical and unkind to people. The stories you just posted about the girls you associate with - if taken at face value - are ones of treating other people like they're tools that can be discarded at will.

I find it to be in strong contrast to my view of christian ideals of love and respect. In terms of communist ideals of a non-materialistic society it also strikes me as peculiar to essentially buy people into a relationship.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

You strike me as being cynical and unkind to people. The stories you just posted about the girls you associate with - if taken at face value - are ones of treating other people like they're tools that can be discarded at will.

I find it to be in strong contrast to my view of christian ideals of love and respect. In terms of communist ideals of a non-materialistic society it also strikes me as peculiar to essentially buy people into a relationship.

Okay, I'm going to explain this one...more...time.

I have a girlfriend. I like her very much. Unfortunately, she is not capable of being wholly monogamous. Therefore, I don't see the need to be monogamous myself. She always is the one who initiates the cycle of sleeping around, I only do so when she does. I have feelings for her, perhaps deep feelings. But I refuse to be in a truly serious relationship with someone who isn't capable of being wholly monogamous. If she were, I would be so as well, and then we could progress in this relationship. That may happen in time; we've only been together for about three months. She may not feel secure enough with me yet to commit yet, and that's fine. If she at some point decides that I'm to be trusted with a committing relationship, then we can have one. But until that point comes, we will not be serious. I certainly don't treat her as a "tool that can be discarded at will." You don't know the whole story. You don't know what goes on. Am I treating her as a "tool that can be discarded at will" when I tell her that I love her and that I wish she would stop ****ing around every so often so I could as well? We spend the vast majority of our time with each other, it's only once or twice a month she decides to take someone else for a little while. When that happens, I follow suit, and a few days later we get back together again in some mushy romantic fashion.

Secondly, I don't buy her into a relationship, whatever that means. To be sure, for her the initial attraction was "hey look, a single white man who lives here, because he's white, he's rich!" while for me it was "hey look, a hot Lao girl I can have sex with!" I don't give her money, I just pay for nearly everything that we do together. When I said that it's fine, I meant that the strain she places on my finances is one I can easily handle. We don't do expensive things, rarely do I spend more than $20 a day with her. $2 to go swimming. $6 at a festival. $4 to go bowling. $6 for beer at the bar. Etc.

 

[amadeus]

We'd be more inclined to believe you're the hopeless romantic if you hadn't posted your philandering a mere three months ago.

 

[Winner]

What are you implying? That Africans by nature are not able to build a succesful country of their own?

No, I am implying that Africa was totally bacwards when Europeans came, in fact, it was centuries behind Europe. Most realistic speculation is, that if no Europeans ever colonized Africa, it would be still in Middle Ages now.

You should look at the social, scientific and economic state of pre-colonial Africa. It had no requirements for the industrial revolution.

I think the process of colonization was inevitable. It is a rule, that if more advanced society makes a contact with a less advanced one which has something it needs (gold, land, spice, slaves), and has all the means necessary to subjugate it, it does it.

 

[Trajan12]

No, I am implying that Africa was totally bacwards when Europeans came, in fact, it was centuries behind Europe. Most realistic speculation is, that if no Europeans ever colonized Africa, it would be still in Middle Ages now.

You should look at the social, scientific and economic state of pre-colonial Africa. It had no requirements for the industrial revolution.

I think the process of colonization was inevitable. It is a rule, that if more advanced society makes a contact with a less advanced one which has something it needs (gold, land, spice, slaves), and has all the means necessary to subjugate it, it does it.

Man you really got to be more cautious with the words you use if there are any black people in the Czhech Republic.

 

[Fifty]

I'll address all three sub-discussions, because I'm cool like that.

on the pics: I see no reason to believe they are the least bit doctored. Perfection explains nicely how dubious of a claim that is.

on pasi's sex life: I think constantly bragging about how much sex he supposedly gets, and his constant treatment of it as if it is "no big deal" or somesuch, or that he is somekind of player, is indicitive of a desire to feel cool.

on Africa: AFAIK, there is quite a bit of scholarly work that suggests that Africa would not have developed to the same level as the "first world", at least in any meaningful period of time. Jared Diamond writes about this at length I beleive in his Guns, Germs, and Steel. This isn't because of any inherent inferiority or anything of African races, but because of the geography, resources, etc.

 

[Mathilda]

Moderator Action: Pasi Nurminen banned for 7 days. You have several warnings already, then you spam a thread with your sexlife, wich would be againgst the rules in at least two different ways.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Lotus49]

This image was dated around December 23rd, 2002.

JUST before we (USA) stopped sending oil to North Korea. That was around early 2003. Point being, they're probably much darker now, than in that image from late '02... unless China completely picked up all the slack. Unlikely, though. China gives them a paltry ration of oil... sort of like an I.V., just to keep them alive. -So they can feel they're doing their duty, preventing a total collapse of civilization in their neighbor country. But, China's not exactly doing them 'special favors'.

Rumsfeld's picture, that he keeps on his desk, is much more recent. It shows a North Korea that is totally pitch black, save the capital city - which is a very small, little light.

 

[Princeps]

No, I am implying that Africa was totally bacwards when Europeans came, in fact, it was centuries behind Europe. Most realistic speculation is, that if no Europeans ever colonized Africa, it would be still in Middle Ages now.

Well, that is not realistic speculation. I do not believe that Africa would be in the same level as Europe, or north America, but much more of it would be lid.

You should look at the social,

Yes. Thriving African Empires were usually unions of tribes. Europeans forced these tribes to live under their colonial rule. Now, they live in these artificial states often ruled by corrupt governments. People are often more loyal to their tribes than to the state.

However, had the Europeans traded with the Africans more fairly, co-operated with them and so on. I think Africans could have formed rather successful states and absorbed European technology.

scientific

Europeans learned 80% of the "renaissance" technologies and advances from the Muslims. Why wouldn't the Africans copy it from the Europeans?

I think the process of colonization was inevitable. It is a rule, that if more advanced society makes a contact with a less advanced one which has something it needs (gold, land, spice, slaves), and has all the means necessary to subjugate it, it does it.

So now you're excusing European atrocities with the it was "inevitable" arguement.

Guess what, this isn't true in every case. Therefore it does not excuse their crimes.

 

[unscratchedfoot]

I lived in North Korea for a year and there certainly wasn't any power at night. Its a stalkers paradise for sure. You could go out anytime after dark and see these shady characters prowling the streets and doing panty raids in first floor apartment balconies. I always carried a steel whip and a boot knife whenever I went out at night. The locals sure frowned on foreigners who went out with the gals there so the powerout did have some advantages in avoiding the snoops looking out from slightly parted curtains. Good thing they are too poor to have infrared goggles. I wouldn't go there again now with the nukes being tested cause I don't trust their ability to either conduct safe tests or to resist using them once they're ready to fly.

 

[Winner]

Man you really got to be more cautious with the words you use if there are any black people in the Czhech Republic.

They are, but they don't mind that, because they don't think of themselves as Africans. Besides, this isn't about black, yellow or whatever people, this is about the level of development.

 

[Trajan12]

They are, but they don't mind that, because they don't think of themselves as Africans. Besides, this isn't about black, yellow or whatever people, this is about the level of development.

I myself have Egyptian and Middle Eastern ancestors. At the most I consider myself brown. I think Afriaca should get to work, start cooperating, and really do something with what they do have.

 

[Rossiya]

Europeans learned 80% of the "renaissance" technologies and advances from the Muslims. Why wouldn't the Africans copy it from the Europeans?

How can you say that, when there are no totally factual statistics as there are today? It's like saying that 5% of prehistoric men were gay.

 

[Winner]

My last response in this thread since this is totally off-topic here. If you want to continue, start a new thread.

Well, that is not realistic speculation. I do not believe that Africa would be in the same level as Europe, or north America, but much more of it would be lid.

And that's another wishful thinking. The cities we now see as white dots were founded and build by Europeans. Before Europeans, Africans didn't even know electricity.

If you really think that the colonization somehow prevented Africans from starting some miraculous golden age, that would catapult them into the developed world, it's just your wishful thinking.

Yes. Thriving African Empires were usually unions of tribes. Europeans forced these tribes to live under their colonial rule. Now, they live in these artificial states often ruled by corrupt governments. People are often more loyal to their tribes than to the state.

Tribalism itself would have kept them in pre-modern age. You simply cannot build an advanced society, if it is divided along tribal lines. You're contradicting yourself here.

However, had the Europeans traded with the Africans more fairly, co-operated with them and so on. I think Africans could have formed rather successful states and absorbed European technology.

Fairly? How? Europeans wanted goods and resources in large quantities that Africans, exactly because of their level of social development, were unable to deliver. In order to increase their efficiency, Europeans had to take over the administration of Africa.

Europeans learned 80% of the "renaissance" technologies and advances from the Muslims. Why wouldn't the Africans copy it from the Europeans?

And Muslims learned it from Romans and Greeks. That's not the point. Europeans learned fairly primitive technologies. The bulk of the knowledge they got from Muslims were Classical philosophical texts. On the other hand, Africans, in the beginning of European colonization, were mostly less developed than Europeans at the time of Renaissance.

This primitive cultures would have to absorb and utilize technologies developed during 2000 years of Western research. Technologies like steam engine, optics, advanced physics etc.

I dare to say that introduction of these technologies without proper control would be much more devastating. Europeans at least kept the peace between various tribes. Imagine these tribes would have AK-47 and no authority above them.

Face it - Africa is in this mess not because Europeans colonized it, but because they left too early.

So now you're excusing European atrocities with the it was "inevitable" arguement.

Guess what, this isn't true in every case. Therefore it does not excuse their crimes.

European atrocities are nothing compared to what happened in pre-colonial Africa every day - tribal warfare, famine, diseases (terrible infant mortality for example). Europeans certainly did some bad things, but they were in fact very benevolent compared to the previous rulers. During some 100-150 years of European colonization, Africa developed rapidly. Too bad Africans became independent before they got ready for that.

 

[warpus]

No. If Europeans would have traded with Africa fairly, instead of exploiting it in every possible way, African tribes could have formed pretty much thriving empires.

Yeah, and if the Mongolians had brought milk and cookies instead of destroying half of central & eastern europe, Poland could've taken over the world and spread polish sausage all over the globe.

What does this have to do with NK anyway?

If everyone (the europeans & arabs) left Africa alone, African tribes would have been even more stagnant than they already were, imo. There would have been little competition and almost no reason to innovate. Why do you think it was so easy for the Arabs & Europeans to expoilt Africa?

 

[warpus]

Face it - Africa is in this mess not because Europeans colonized it, but because they left too early.

Uhm no, Africa is a mess because Europeans carved it up in arbitrary chunks and left it a mess. I'm not saying it wouldn't be a mess if they had never come, but the current mess is at least 50% due to colonization.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

on Africa: AFAIK, there is quite a bit of scholarly work that suggests that Africa would not have developed to the same level as the "first world", at least in any meaningful period of time. Jared Diamond writes about this at length I beleive in his Guns, Germs, and Steel. This isn't because of any inherent inferiority or anything of African races, but because of the geography, resources, etc.

I wrote a short (!) history of Africa for a class I took about a year ago. The books I had all talked about the inherent limits in the African terrain, particularly its ability to support an increasingly large population that is reflective of it being the second largest continent. Basically, Africa's populations "maxed out" very early, and really isn't capable of holding many more people. It's not just the deserts, mountain ranges, and deep jungles that detract from the ability to feed more people, but things like the soil. The soil over much of Africa sucks, it's this nasty clay-sand mix thing; obviously this is not true in river valleys like the Niger, Nile, or Senegal, but these are very small areas indeed, but you can be sure they are heavily populated.
So, in the end, Africa wouldn't have that many more people, and, given the African history of retaining tribal customs and traditions (which they still do to this day, and here was find the root of many an African Civil War), it's not unreasonable to say that colonialism did much to force te Africans into the industrial era.
Also, notice the most developed of the African nations, where are they? Ah, yes, those are the Mediterranean peoples, who do not have the SubSaharan plague that is tribalism; indeed, Meiterranean Africans are in many respects very much European.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Uhm no, Africa is a mess because Europeans carved it up in arbitrary chunks and left it a mess. I'm not saying it wouldn't be a mess if they had never come, but the current mess is at least 50% due to colonization.

Right, colonialism's mistake (or rather, the imperalists') was in cutting and running in Africa, they ought to have really taken the time, and made sure their colonies were in a condition in which they could run themselves adequately.
I recall the British taking a headstart in this, and that is why the former British colonies, like South Africa, Egypt, and Kenya,(I got no excuse for Sudan) are ahead of many of the other ones.

 

[amadeus]

South Africa's case is unique in that it had a large settler population, as opposed to many of the other European-controlled territory of the day. Southern Rhodesia was a similar case, and those two countries represented the most industrialized and diversified economies on the continent.

Rhodesia, of course, was subsequently destroyed by ZANU. If South Africa and the ANC continue the course they're on, it won't be long before we hear about "war veterans" seizing white-owned property around Johannesburg and brutalizing minority populations, including their own black minorities.

Kenya, though, is no shining example of tolerance either. They discriminated against Kenya's South Asian population as well as the Europeans. Most whites in Kenya fled less than a decade after independence.