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.
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.
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.
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.
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.