Reply With Quote
Saw it earlier today while movie-hopping, after Jack Reacher. Waltz carried it imo
Just kidding, great movie and Kool is an idiot.
Saw it earlier today while movie-hopping, after Jack Reacher. Waltz carried it imo
Waltz was great. Love the end with him - just got pushed a little too far
It was classicWaltz was great. Love the end with him - just got pushed a little too far
^ I understand why you're still upset...but as I told you before Cully and Luva threatened to withdraw their friendship if I paid you...their friendship meant more to me than paying you what I owed...I had every intention of paying....plus midnight_pulp was in my hear big time...he was saying all kinds of foul about you...here's one:
if they are so advance, why they still live like they are in the jungle....lol head start 5000yrs, yet dont have anything to show for it....
you can't get academic credit by constantly asking me to educate you...I've done enough...our education system won't allow it...try enrolling in a community college..it'll be a good start for you...
wow...thanks for those links.
there is a poster here from Africa that could shed more light to your points but i don't think she'd want to get involved with the nonsense.
I don't click lanks - care to explain?
Exactly.
I personally wasn't offended, partially because it was pretty much exactly what I was expecting, but mostly because it's a damn movie. But far be it from me to tell others (of a different race, no less) whether or not it's okay to be offended by something and to essentially get over slavery, as so many white people seemingly think it's their birthright to. Damn near every time a "black" person is offended by something or even suggests racism may have played a part in something, they're told to "stop playing the race card" . . . as if racism has been abolished or as if something can only be termed as racist when a white person determines that it is. It's sickening.
i'm saying africa was in control of its own destiny. colonization before the 19th century was mostly trade posts around the coasts on the way to the East Indies. europeans didnt treat africa like they did the new world. in a sense, european economics had much more of an impact. colonization was a result - not a cause.
basing their economies on the slave trade and precious metals, africans developed into fractured warring states that basically started killing each other off. after they were weakened and slavery was abolished around the world, which ruined african exports, europeans took advantage and then colonized.
it's not like europeans invaded africa, enslaved all the peaceful tribes and colonized. they colonized after africa was in shambles.
"europeans didnt treat africa like they did the new world."
Europeans exploited Africa for its natural resources, including, requiring genocide and/or enslaving the Africans, just like the Europeans did in the Americas or India. The similarities overwhelm whatever differences you think there were. The exploitation continues by the foreign oilcos in Nigeria, etc.
It was an excellent movie. Maybe a little over the top with the blood spatters though.
I wanna go see this movie again.
Anyone in SA wanna go with me?
I'll go. Looks good. What was the original like? They are going to show it at the drafthouse.
really? you that lonely brah....
ing Spurs fan
You live in Houston if you lived any closer I'd take your broke ass too my dude.really? you that lonely brah....
ing Spurs fan
No, it's more like Europeans invaded Africa, set up harsh colonial governments that didn't meet the needs of the people, raped the land, and introduced ethnic ties with their "divide and conquer" tactics which prevents African unity to this day.
Yeah at first there were some good intentions to set trade routes to supplement the slave trade. This was accomplished by Europeans working with the Kings and Chiefs in partnership. That's fine and dandy until the greed took place and they decided to invade and get a "piece of the African cake". That is the part I'm taking about.
africa was not okay before the europeans settled. you can spin it all you want, but for the most part, africa was composed of warring tribes.
otoh, what you're talking about did not occur until after the slave trade ended and white americans had nothing to do with.
I'm talking 19th century and not about Americans either.
The fact you keep saying "warring tribes" shows me the ignorance you have on this subject. There were city states all over Africa with governmental structure that would rival Europe that were doing the enslaving. The warring states over the slave trade is also attributed to the Europeans because they were the ones that introduced chattel slavery to Africa in the first place! Before that I'd say slavery was caste or pow and not as commodities.
my OG, Creepn in here giving these crackas a history lesson.
don't hurt em' creep dawg.
if they were so good, whats stopping the current state they are in from going back to the time ur talking about?
so you do agree with me that their decline was over an issue of an inefficient socio-economic structure? there's no way you can tangibly sustain the slave trade and still be "ok." i never commented on the micro structure or "sophistication" of political en ies because it doesn't apply here. you're trying to rebuttal with semantics, which doesn't work. what we're talking about is the overall health of the (presumably) sub-saharan states in the 19th century. personally, i dont think selling your own people can bring about any real economic growth, especially after the practice was abolished, and i dont find that as a sign of sophistication.
i just wanted to point out that it wasn't the european states doing the enslaving like so many are led to believe, and they moved in to africa after it was weakened. i dont know of any sub-saharan states/tribes that were strong enough to counter a european presence. they were too weak at that point.
note that im not pro euro or white. i think euros were religious, greedy glory seekers that used religion (and later on, nationalism) to expand their holdings.
I can't agree with you that the slave trade was the cause of some "decline" because slaves weren't the only thing they were trading. You know Africa is rich with other commodities. I do agree with you that basing your entire trade on slaves would be inefficient.
About this "decline" you keep speaking of, pre-colonial sub-saharan Africa had their goods and bads just as the outside nations with their wars, trade, rebellion, famine, what have you. Of course, Europe was able to impose their military might. Europeans had a technological advantage in warfare and annexed many parts of the world. So using that as some proof that Africa was in decline is not a sustainable one.
Look this discussion started when some poster said that white colonization can turn poor cities to gold. I was merely saying that's not the case.
Last edited by Creepn; 01-02-2013 at 01:16 AM.
Movie was awesome, favorite part had to be the argument over the hoods.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
