Replies

Now explain why the rest of black Africa, years after colonial rule set up basic western civilized society, now engages in unending circles of violence, mainly black on black. Could it be that white settlers realized that taking the upper hand (being racist)and controlling the masses, which could easily overrun them if organized, were their only logical means of survival. Tribalism is causing black Africa to once again become a splintered continent of thousands of different peoples.

However, with your screen-name, let's go back in History to when another high civilization, Rome, conquered the savage tribes in Gaul, Hispania and Britannia. They were a rather savage lot. The Celts had a rather nasty habit of collecting human heads.

Yet, Rome found a way to integrate the conquered savages into the fabric of the Roman Republic and then the Empire until the time came when the descendants of those savages considered themselves Romans, contributed legionnaires, generals and Emperor's to Rome. The descendants of those savages eventually absorbed and civilized new waves of savages coming in from Germania after the fall of Rome.

The question then becomes if the difference between Western Europe and Africa is due to Rome's policies or to an inherent difference between European tribal savages and African tribal savages.

Were the Celts any less savage than African savages or was Rome more willing to eventually accept a civilized blonde, blue-eyed Celt as a Roman citizen on equal footing with a brown-eyed, black haired Latin while the European colonists in Africa never dreamed of considering an African as a legal equal.

You've said more than a mouthful, my friend.

However, with your screen-name, let's go back in History to when another high civilization, Rome, conquered the savage tribes in Gaul, Hispania and Britannia. They were a rather savage lot. The Celts had a rather nasty habit of collecting human heads.

Yet, Rome found a way to integrate the conquered savages into the fabric of the Roman Republic and then the Empire until the time came when the descendants of those savages considered themselves Romans, contributed legionnaires, generals and Emperor's to Rome. The descendants of those savages eventually absorbed and civilized new waves of savages coming in from Germania after the fall of Rome.

They also talk about the original European immigrants to America being more accepting of democracy, because they came from the European tradition. But there were a lot of countries in Europe that had NEVER held major democratic elections, at the time a lot of immigrants from those countries were coming to America! The idea that somehow whites are better at democracy than everyone else is just ridiculous.

> another high civilization, Rome, conquered the savage tribes in Gaul, Hispania and Britannia. They were a rather savage lot. The Celts had a rather nasty habit of collecting human heads.

That's right out of the backwoods of academic nonsense. It was the Romans who fed Christians to the lions, but that was not savage? It was the Romans who pitted Gladiators against each other for sport, but that was not savage? It was the Romans who wrote the history from which you develop this nonesense. The Celts were no more savage than the times.

>Yet, Rome found a way to integrate the conquered savages into the fabric of the Roman Republic and then the Empire until the time came when the descendants of those savages considered themselves Romans, contributed legionnaires, generals and Emperor's to Rome. The descendants of those savages eventually absorbed and civilized new waves of savages coming in from Germania after the fall of Rome.

What a pile of BS. What musty old book are you clipping that from? The Celts untimately kicked the Romans a$$, and that was the end of that tyranny.

You don't even know who the Celts are, which is what makes your post so laughable.

You're correct in a few respects. Yes, Rome did integrate other peoples into their society (albeit slowly over several hundred years) after conquests and I'm sure this had to be done in order to maintain order in the empire. Still, by 300-400 AD, the barbarian peoples had so permeated the military and controlled the majority of colonial land that by 410AD, the true Latins really only had power in the Italian peninsula and it was just a matter of time before they fell completely. Some even say that Roman Empire never really fell, just changed form. The fact is that the violence never ended. Integration is probably the best solution to a world of people on the move but as long as there are different races and cultures (and religions), there will be no peace. It's always been one tribe subjugating another. People will do what they perceive needs to be done to survive. It's sad but a fact.

Were the Celts any less savage than African savages or was Rome more willing to eventually accept a civilized blonde, blue-eyed Celt as a Roman citizen on equal footing with a brown-eyed, black haired Latin while the European colonists in Africa never dreamed of considering an African as a legal equal.

The difference was that the Celtic and Germanic tribes were technologically and culturally unsophisticated, but were not stupid. Faced with the technological superiority of the Romans, and getting their heads kicked in a bit, they learned

One problem with South Africa is that African Blacks consistently test out as having median IQs in the 70-85 range, which turns into a problem in a technological world.

" . . . was Rome more willing to eventually accept a civilized blonde, blue-eyed Celt as a Roman citizen on equal footing with a brown-eyed, black haired Latin . . ."

With apologies for straying off topic . . .
I had read that the original Romans were, in fact, Celtic or something very close. The Divine Julius, for example, is supposed to have had red hair.