I don’t like to beef with other black bloggers. But Michael Fisher called me out in ridiculous fashion the other night, posting Rhodesian atrocity photos and claiming that I’d like to see white folks back in control of Zimbabwe.I decided to flex my serve-and-volley game on the motherfucker.
Reproduced below is a portion of our dueling commentary, beginning about mid-stream. I have made a few cuts for readability’s sake... but I haven’t corrected Pisher’s spelling errors and typos.
If he (or anyone else) wants to continue the discussion, I’ll do so here, not on Pisher’s blog.
MICHAEL FISHER: ... So let me ask you straight up, Davis.
Are the African people of Zimbabwe mentally inferior to the European people of England or are they not?
UNDERCOVER BLACK MAN: I have no way of knowing. Nor do you. Which is why I don’t make pronouncements about “inferiority.” (If you have evidence that Zimbabweans are mentally equivalent to or mentally superior to the English, please point me to it.)
Anyone, meanwhile, can look at the history of civilizations and determine the advantages and disadvantages of each. Which is useful to do.
The inability of a people to read and write is clearly disadvantageous in a world where the Arabs, the Chinese and the Europeans were not only reading and writing... but applying their burgeoning knowledge base to the creation of wealth by spreading far beyond their borders to buy and sell shit.
FISHER: ... “If you have evidence that Zimbabweans are mentally equivalent to or mentally superior to the English, please point me to it”
I’ll be happy to: ...
You can not defeat a an enemy who is superior in armament, technology, and economic resources by being “intellectually less developed” than that enemy, David.
UBM: Oh for pity’s sake, Michael. You got to come stronger than that.
You know better than anyone that ZANU and ZAPU received money, weapons, political support and – most importantly – military and tactical training from the Soviet Union, Communist China and North Korea. (Could the Zimbabweans have won a war without this help? Apparently they didn’t think so.)
So try again: If you have evidence that Zimbabweans are mentally equivalent to or mentally superior to the English, please point me to it.
FISHER: Once again, you don’t know what you are talking about. ZAPU certainly received military equipment and training from the Soviets, but their army, ZIRPA like the ANC’s Umkonto We Sizwe, put it to very limited use. ZIRPA was useless. In 1973 ZANU had not yet to receive broad material support from the Chinese. Most of the material support the actually received from Tanzania (who last I checked were African),as well as the Pan-Africanist and other black nationalist organizations here in the United States as well as some Maoist formations in Germany, mainly the KBW. ZANU/ZANLA received no support whatsoever from the Soviets and the Eastern bloc.
No matter. Even if the Chinese and the Soviets had trained them in guerrilla warfare to the T, they still were the ones who planned and executed the war.
How is that “weak”? You ever been in the military?
You are such a die hard racist, Mills, that you dismiss any and everything that points to the quite remarkable ingenuity and intelligence of Africans.
The problem with that is, that this is the least intelligent type of racism.
A real white supremacist/racist is a scientist. Else the small minority of truly powerful white supremacists would not be able to maintain the repressive system of white supremacy globally.
They do not underestimate the intelligence, ingenuity, and power of Africans and other non-white people. Else they would have perished a long while ago.
FISHER: Now since I answered your question, how abut you answer my question:
Mills...
“I have no way of knowing. Nor do you. Which is why I don’t make pronouncements about ‘inferiority.’”
Is that so? So what then, Mr. Wordsmith and “Lover of Language”, explains your use of “intellectual” in the sentence “It doesn’t have the history of intellectual... development”?”
UBM: By “intellectual” development I mean such things as a literature and a system of higher education.
UBM: In 1973 ZANU had not yet to receive broad material support from the Chinese. Most of the material support the actually received from Tanzania (who last I checked were African)...
This is getting embarrassing, Fish. The fact is, to this very day, Tanzanian pilots and sailors and military officers are trained in China.
Tanzania receives more foreign aid from China than any other African nation does. The Chinese have been pumping money into Tanzania since 1964, building textile mills and the like.
It was the Chinese who financed and built the Tanzania-Zambia Railway in the 1970s, to the tune of half a billion dollars. (This was China’s largest foreign-aid project ever.)
Ergo... whatever “material support” Zimbabwean freedom fighters received from Tanzania was a byproduct of China’s heavy investment in that country. There is no Tanzanian economy without China.
As for your claim that “ZANU/ZANLA received no support whatsoever from the Soviets and the Eastern bloc,” hmmmm... I was under the impression that by the mid-1970s, ZANU/ZANLA ran guerrilla operations out of Mozambique... at a time when hundreds of Russian, East German and Cuban military instructors were in Mozambique, giving them support.
I know this may not fit your narrative of the black freedom struggle, Mike. But there it is nonetheless.
As for your charge that I “dismiss any and everything that points to the quite remarkable ingenuity and intelligence of Africans”... nonsense.
I simply point out to you (and any of your doctrinaire ilk) that the “quite remarkable ingenuity and intelligence of Africans” was not the sort that led to the development of the printing press, electricity, the internal combustion engine, the radio, the polio vaccine, the Mars probe, or the microchips which allow us to carry on this conversation across the intertubes.
And that has more to do with Zimbabwe’s current position in the world economy than the evils of white racism.
FISHER: ... While I fail to see what the building of the Tanzam railroad and the Chinese training of Tanzanian military personnel has to do with the innate mental ability of an African to grasp and execute the principles of guerrilla warfare, let’s turn to analyzing your statement:
“By ‘intellectual’ development I mean such things as a literature and a system of higher education.”
Now, that’s quite an interesting (mis)use of the term “intellectual development”, which term (until your innovative usage) traditionally referred to the development of the intellect.
No matter.
So let’s plug in your particular wordsmithian usage of the term into your “non-racist” statement:
“Zimbabwe will never be -- and could never be -- what England is. It doesn’t have the history of literature and system of higher education and economic development.”
So now you are saying that the Zimbabweans can never attain the level of the English because of their past lack of “literature and a system of higher education”.
Now why is that?
Seems to me that exactly what any rational person, pan-Africanist or otherwise, would expect is that with the implementation of a system of higher education Zimbabwe could very well be “what England is”.
That leaves us with two choices of how to interpret your elucidations on the mental abilities of Zimbabweans:
Either
(a) you have a very shallow and sloppy grasp of the English language, David, (maybe those “black genes” you are carrying somewhere in your body are keeping your “intellect” from “developing” despite America’s literature and system of higher education?),
or
(b) you are trying to weasel your way out of having stated some pretty reprehensible (and illogical to boot) stuff.
So which is it? Are you intellectually maldeveloped (and I am referring to your intellect as per the proper use of the term) or are you just being a bigot?
UBM: Now, that’s quite an interesting (mis)use of the term “intellectual development”, which term (until your innovative usage) traditionally referred to the development of the intellect.
How else to assess the “intellectual development” of a culture than by its intellectual products?
The burden is on you, Fish, to justify your apparent belief that a society without an alphabet is as intellectually well-developed as a society that produced Oxford and Cambridge universities.
Perhaps an analogy will clarify my position. A few years ago, I read a news article about an Amazonian tribe that one day simply walked out of the jungle and into a modern South American city to begin living. (I can’t remember which country.)
This tribe had never developed the wheel, Michael. This “society” existed for centuries without a wheel.
I have no way to assess the innate cognitive capacity of members of this Amazonian tribe. But I can make the observation (which you shouldn’t have a problem acknowledging) that a society without the wheel is less developed intellectually than... oh, than any modern nation-state.
Seems to me that exactly what any rational person, pan-Africanist or otherwise, would expect is that with the implementation of a system of higher education Zimbabwe could very well be “what England is”.
Why do you expect this? On what basis could you expect this? That Zimbabweans could very well produce and maintain universities comparable to Oxford and Cambridge? Really? That’s your position, Fish?
How long might that take to accomplish? How could Zimbabweans make up a 700-year head start by England in the area of education? England is what it is because of the remarkable ingenuity and intelligence of the English, as attested to by its accumulated literature in areas such as political philosophy, economics, physics, etc.
64 comments:
I don’t have any comments on the Fisher/Mills polemics. However, the intensity of the crisis in Zimbabwe may have just reached politically critical mass.
Western Imperialists Yank Tsvangirai’s Chain
The imperialist have yanked the chain on their running-dog lackey Morgan Tsvangirai forcing him to renege on power-sharing agreements he had already signed, thereby creating a significant roadblock to peace in Zimbabwe.
[MDC-T leader Morgan Tsvangirai signed 13 agreements with Zanu-PF and the Arthur Mutambara-led MDC formation before abruptly pulling out of the South African-facilitated talks on Tuesday evening, it has emerged.
Documents seen by The Herald show that Tsvangirai's negotiators in the inter-party dialogue – Tendai Biti and Elton Mangoma – were authorised by their party leader to append their signatures to the 13 agreements as and when they were reached.
However, on Tuesday, Tsvangirai presented the other two principals – President Mugabe and Mutambara – with a fresh position paper titled "Notes on the Dialogue to Date", which appeared to repudiate all the agreements already signed and would have set back the status of the negotiations by weeks.
At the time that Tsvangirai said he could not sign the final agreement, which President Mugabe and Mutambara had already endorsed, only four issues remained on the agenda.
It is understood that President Mugabe and Mutambara subsequently agreed on these issues, paving the way for Cde Mugabe to form a new Government and for the Seventh Parliament to start sitting following elections held earlier in the year.] --
http://raceandhistory.com/selfnews/viewnews.cgi?newsid1218744972,88336,.shtml
The imperialist powers were always opposed to the Zimbabwe Summit organized by Thabo Mbeki. They have been seething with anger ever since Afrikan leaders rejected their demands for even harsher punishment of the Zimbabwean people at the most recent G8 summit.
In the arrogant, ethnocentric minds of imperialists, Afrikans are not supposed to possess the capacity for self-determination. Mbeki organized an all-Afrikan summit which simply was not going in the direction the imperialist wanted. It was just a matter of time before the leash around Tsvangirai’s balls was squeezed, and looking over these agreements we can understand why the imperialists were pissed.
--On the 25th of July, Tsvangirai agreed that sanctions were not targeted and the Western economic embargo was hurting the nation and should be lifted as a matter of urgency.
-- Part of that agreement, titled Restoration of Economic Stability and Growth, reads: "All forms of measures and sanctions against Zimbabwe (must) be lifted in order to facilitate a sustainable solution to the challenges that are currently facing Zimbabwe."
-- The three principals also agreed on the same date that there was undue external interference in the country's domestic affairs and they would not tolerate the subversion of the sovereign will of the people of Zimbabwe by outsiders with vested interests that ran contrary to national aspirations.
-- "The parties reaffirm the principle of the United Nations Charter on non-interference in the internal affairs of member countries.
"The parties hereby agree that the responsibility of effecting change of Government in Zimbabwe vests exclusively in and is the sole prerogative of the people of Zimbabwe through peaceful, democratic and constitutional means," they said.
-- They added that they would "reject any unlawful, violent, undemocratic and unconstitutional means of changing governments" and that "no outsiders have a right to call or campaign for regime change in Zimbabwe".
Despite this earlier agreement, it is understood that in his new position paper Tsvangirai unconstitutionally wanted the foundation of the next Government to be premised on the results of the inconclusive March 29 elections – a demand that has been the cornerstone of Western opposition to Zimbabwe's electoral processes.
Another interesting agreement that was reached was on the issue of land reform.
-- On the 25th of July, the three parties said Britain must honour its Lancaster House obligations to fund land tenure reforms in the country.
-- The parties called "upon the United Kingdom government to accept primary responsibility to pay compensation for land acquired from land owners for resettlement".
-- It was also agreed that the issue of multiple farm ownership and productivity on farms be dealt with as a matter of urgency by the Seventh Parliament through the institution of a holistic land audit.
-- On the issue of freedom of expression and communication, in an agreement that was also signed on July 25, the parties said: "(We) call upon governments that are hosting and/or funding external radio stations broadcasting into Zimbabwe to cease such hosting and funding."
-- Zanu-PF, MDC and MDC-T also urged those journalists working for these pirate radio stations to return to Zimbabwe, get proper accreditation and start working for the good of the country rather than for its enemies.
-- Other agreements signed were on State Organs and Institutions, Rule of Law, Respect for the Constitution and Other Laws, and Free Political Activity on July 25.
-- The next day the parties signed agreements on the Security of Persons and Prevention of Violence, the National Youth Training Programme, Freedom of Assembly and Association, Traditional Leaders and Humanitarian and Food Assistance.
-- On August 5, the parties signed an agreement titled Promotion of Equality, National Healing, Cohesion and Unity.
There is no doubt that after being threatened with castration, the running-dog lackey was sent back to the Summit to sabotage it.
[The insiders said everyone had been caught unawares when on Tuesday Tsvangirai brought to the table a document that made it appear as if no agreements had been reached.
It was at this point that the other two parties, in the presence of President Thabo Mbeki, decided they could not start the negotiations all over again and would proceed with the formation of an inclusive Government and the convening of Parliament.
Tsvangirai, the insiders said, would be accommodated in the new Government when he was ready to sign.]-- The Herald
Of course the spineless Tsvangirai will never sign an agreement which demands that Great Britain honor the Lancaster House Agreement which it signed in bad faith, and which demands that the imperialist powers keep their bloody and greedy paws out of the internal business of the Zimbabwean people.
The imperialists would love nothing more than to see a Rwandan style bloodbath in Zimbabwe. The Afrikans were close to avoiding a potential recapitulation of that horrific scenario. Now they must somehow find a way to move forward in the best interest of the Zimbabwean people.
In my opinion there is nothing wrong with Afrikan people playing one group of imperialist against another group, as long as they don’t compromise their self-determination. Patrice Lumumba failed to play the “Russian Card” when he had a chance, and we’ve seen disastrous results for the Congolese people ever since.
Robert Mugabe is already being punished for his relationship with China:
“What his sin is seems to have more to do with his attempts to get out from under Anglo-American neo-colonial serfdom dependency and to pursue a national economic development independent of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. His real sin seems to be the fact that he has turned to the one nation that offers his government credits and soft loans for economic development with no strings attached—The Peoples' Republic of China.” -- F. William Engdahl
See: http://www.africaspeaks.com/articles/2008/0408.html
Given this situation with China, and the fact that the Russians are blistering with contempt for NATO, why shouldn’t Mugabe play the Chinese and Russian Card against the EU, the UK and the US?
Cute picture of these Zimbabwean High School students you put up there. Are these the kids that will fulfill your creed that "Zimbabwe will never be -- and could never be -- what England is. It doesn't have the history of intellectual and economic development."?
Are these the kids that will fulfill your creed that "Zimbabwe will never be -- and could never be -- what England is. It doesn't have the history of intellectual and economic development."?
Like I said in the first place, Fish: At least Zimbabweans can read and write now. And these particular kids are reading and writing the English language... so Zimbabwe's encounter with the white man couldn't have been all bad.
Furthermore, these particular youngsters attend the elite Hartzell High School, which was established by (and remains financed by) white folks... the United Methodist Church, to be precise.
Methodist Bishop Joseph C. Hartzell, an American missionary, began his quest to educate Africans in 1898 by founding a primary school.
Hartzell's mission is still bearing fruit for Africans, as the United Methodist Church founded Africa University in Zimbabwe in 1994.
Furthermore, the particular youngsters in this photograph come from poor families, and their schooling is paid for via the money raised by an American group called United Methodist Volunteers in Mission.
Education is a wonderful thing, as I'm sure you'd agree. But if you still think this photo represents the possibility that Zimbabwe can become "what England is"... it seems that can only happen if white folks pay the bills.
(Ain't you sorry you started fucking with me, Fish?)
David, I appreciate your verbal deluge, but you did not answer this question:
"Are these the kids that will fulfill your creed that "Zimbabwe will never be -- and could never be -- what England is. It doesn't have the history of intellectual and economic development."?
Yes or no?
One step at a time.
Once you answered that question, then we can talk about who should or should not pay the bills.
What's with this whole "building wealth" and literature stuff, Dave, as indicators of some vast wealth of intelligence? You completely dismiss in that argument the whole concept of culture.
Prime example:
Today's trademark and copyright laws (international) and continuing evidence of the cultural differences that have determined dominance under todays definitions.
Many African and Asian cultures do not have within their culture the concept of personal property. They lived a very cooperative lifestyle based in faith and necessity. So in turn, no concept of owning an idea or a piece of land that did not belong to the people.
The very concept of wealth as defined today is rooted in personal ownership and transfer of wealth outside of the cooperative. We value wealth as defined today because we have been born to it. Doesn't mean wealth creation is inherently good.
As for all that exploring and shit those British did, what the fuck choice did they have? Europe has no resources. In life who are always the most successful business people - the children born with everything or the scrappers born with nothing?
Europe dominated because it had the worst weather, the closest borders for warfare and the least food. They HAD to innovate. Doesn't make them inherently more intelligent - just centuries of skill sets unnecessary on regions with relative plenty.
The reason why US corporations can't protect their copyrigt
Oh, and before I forget...
Mills...
"Ain't you sorry you started fucking with me, Fish?"
The one thing I am truly sorry and saddened about is that a supposed black person parrots the most unsophisticated racist dirt out there.
It would be insignificant if you were just a run-of-the mill Quisling-type nut. However, in your capacity as a journalist (particularly when you were working for the reactionary Moonie cult-leader Sun Myung Moon at the Washington Times), you at least twice have made a historic negative impact on the "racial" politics in pop culture and American politricks.
As such you have become a public figure. Thus you can not possibly believe that your thinking on "race" would not be put to the test of public scrutiny.
You can call that "fucking with" you all day long.
It ain't personal, David. It's just business.
UBM, help me out, please. I've always felt like I've walked into the middle of the movie with you and Fisher. Who is he and why do you two verbally spar? What was the original argument about? Thx.
genevagirl...
"Who is he...
I'm no one in particular genevagirl.
"What was the original argument about?"
David's thesis that "black" people on the average are likely genetically disposed to possess lesser intelligence than either "white" people and "Asian" people.
...And all of the consequential positions that would logically follow from adopting such a thesis.
I think eeaster said it best, "Europe dominated because it had the worst weather, the closest borders for warfare and the least food. They HAD to innovate. Doesn't make them inherently more intelligent - just centuries of skill sets unnecessary on regions with relative plenty."
Let's not get that survival instinct twisted with some natural sense of destiny or superiority. It's a mentality that has permeated the earth because the natural result: a perverse expression of cannibalism known as constant warfare. And for the literal folks, I'm using "cannibalism" in a figurative sense.
It's really disturbing to see that the measuring stick is about mastery of written word or wealth acquisition in its many forms. To me, it's similar to the people who say that a brotha isn't intelligent because he can't construct a grammatically correct sentence. His genius may be expressed in completely different manner than the standard-makers. However, it's his speech that defines intelligence. Verbal and/or written articulation is just one means of expressing intelligence.
To me, the ability to think in multi-dimensional ways is a better barometer of intelligence. The ability to think outside of the commonly-diagnosed and accepted measuring stick is a better means is a sign of higher intelligence. All this other shit that people feed into feeds into my Road Dog's point.
There ain't a winner in this kind of debate. Idea exchange is optimal so that we come to some kind of common ground.
Now we're getting deep. Real deep.
Eric wrote: "Doesn't mean wealth creation is inherently good."
But wealth creation does impart power advantages to certain cultures, in competition with other cultures.
I do not place a value judgement on this. I don't talk about who's "superior" and who's "inferior"... thought Fisher constantly stands behind that straw man.
Nor do I talk about what's "inherently good." That gets us into angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin type discussions.
But if you want to make sense of the world as it is, if you want to understand the last 1,000 or 500 years of geopolitical history, and if you want to understand why African nations are weaker than European nations... why Africa is at a power disadvantage vis-a-vis the white West... it's simpleminded to believe that it's because white people are wicked and inhumane.
Eric also wrote: "As for all that exploring and shit those British did, what the fuck choice did they have? Europe has no resources."
Well... yeah. And isn't "intelligence" fundamentally just "the ability to solve problems"?
Such as: "How do we not freeze to death in the winter?"
"How do we make non-arable land arable? And how do we maximize the yields from arable lands?"
"How do we cure syphilis?"
The black-nationalist ideology (or tactic) of focusing on the supposed inhumanity of whites must ignore inconvenient facts of history (and facts of the present-day).
For example, that the people of Zimbabwe today wouldn't be able to read or write if they'd never interacted with Europeans... unless, of course, they got conquered by the Muslim world, or got colonized by the Chinese.
Deangelo Starnes...
"However, it's his speech that defines intelligence. Verbal and/or written articulation is just one means of expressing intelligence.
To me, the ability to think in multi-dimensional ways is a better barometer of intelligence.
Exactly. This is why I asked Mills the following question in a comment on the Assault:
"Even though I [Michael Fisher] have not invented the wheel, does that make me intellectually more developed than, let's say you or the average English person or even the average American white person?"
The point being that the average South African speaks at least three languages (his own such as Xhosa or Zulu etc., as well as English and Afrikaans) fluently. Usually they speak at least three or four African languages besides their own, as well as the two main European languages there. The same applies to West Africans as well as East Africans.
Does it take "intellectual development" to be multi-lingual? Absolutely.
Since the average European or American did not invent the wheel, and since there is no empiric evidence whatsoever to give rise to the rationale that any of them individually would have invented the wheel, the "wheel" argument is useless. However, the multi-lingual argument is not. The fact that the average "black" African can efficiently communicate with a much wider variety of peoples than David Mills, by my standards (and who says my standards is any less legitimate than Mills') proves that Mills is, on the average, waaaaayyy less intelligent than the average "black" African.
Since Mills evidently is not able to function efficiently in Xhosa, Zulu, Wolof, or German, I think it behooves speakers of these languages to take his writings, translate them without his authorization (or without the authorization of the entity that controls the publishing rights), use them in a German, Xhosa, Wolof etc. language film or TV drama, and not pay him or his publisher for it. Or maybe but a pittance. For what use has his product if he does not know how to utilize it?
To me, the ability to think in multi-dimensional ways is a better barometer of intelligence. The ability to think outside of the commonly-diagnosed and accepted measuring stick is a better means is a sign of higher intelligence.
I'm not talking about individuals, DeAngelo. Fisher can't get this through his noggin, but I'm hoping you can. I'm talking about the intellectual development of civilizations.
What kind of culture can you build if you put a primacy on the kind of "mulit-dimensional" thinking you're talking about? And how would that culture stand, in a power balance, with cultures that put a primacy on the type of intelligence that splits atoms and maps the human genome?
See what I'm saying? Western European cultures -- regardless of whatever forces made them the way they are -- have advantages that Southern African cultures do not, due to Europe's intellectual history.
There is no getting around this. Therefore it's a useless fantasy to presume that Zimbabwe could ever be as powerful as England is. And it's a waste of time and energy to blame it all on colonialism.
Mills...
"it's simpleminded to believe that it's because white people are wicked and inhumane."
Who are you in reality? You channeling those simpletons Vince Spence or Thordaddy now?
Where the hell did I ever assert such a thing? I maintain the people who practice racism/white supremacy are inhumane and criminal.
"ignore inconvenient facts of history (and facts of the present-day)...
...For example, that the people of Zimbabwe today wouldn't be able to read or write if they'd never interacted with Europeans... unless, of course, they got conquered by the Muslim world, or got colonized by the Chinese."
Again your "intellectual development hindering 'black genes'" are kicking in.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
If you understood anything about the history of the African people than you would understand that they lost their writing systems and educational systems due to the invasions from the "Middle East" (Asia) long before the Europeans showed up.
The different peoples of "black" Africa have been constantly on a move for some 4000 years now. The constant invasions of their original homelands of KMT and Nubia forced them steadily south. Wave after wave of refugees moved south out of the way of the Hyksos, the Persians, the Greeks, and the Romans, and the Arabs. As soon as one group of "black" Africans settled in the South, and other group fleeing the North uprooted them and the initial group had to move further down South.
This is why "black" Africans became increasingly nomadic and their architecture, for example, devolved in the hinterland.
This "Voelkerwanderung" did not cease until the 18th century AD. Thus the Nguni people of Southern Africa as well as the Shona etc, are relatively recent arrivals (though they were there much longer than the Europeans).
The whole thing ain't got nothing to do with "lack of intelligence" or "intellectual development". It's got to do with survival.
A settled people that has to uproot itself and move every few generations because of outside pressures can not build effectively build high technological societies and, as is the case in Africa, will lose them.
The same thing happened in Europe when the pressure from the Asian Huns was the catalyst for the European "Voelkerwanderung" which eventually resulted in the destruction of the Western Roman Empire and the plunging of Europe, especially Central Europe and the British islands into what is known as the 1000 year long highly primitive "dark ages" from which the Europeans only emerged by acquiring the knowledge of the Arabs, particularly of those in Andalusia.
Not to mention the pressure Ghengis Khan applied in later times. But the decisive factor were the Huns.
This is why, to this day, the Europeans speak in horror and hushed terms of the "yellow peril".
In Africa, the pressure upon the Africans which pressure originated in the North-East ("Asia") and later in the North "Europe" NEVER ceased. This went on for thousands of years. Constantly. The episode of European enslavement and colonization of Africa is only the latest chapter in this development.
As soon as "black" Africans were able to catch their breath and re-build social structures (empires) such as Kanem-Bornu, Monomatapa (Zimbabwe and Mozambique), Mali, Songhai, or the Rozwi Empire set up by the Shona (and whose (Rozwi) trade was violently destroyed by the Portuguese leaving them to be served up on a platter for the English), outside forces came to once again bear down on them and destroy what had been rebuild.
THIS is why "black" Africans lost their writing systems and educational institutions.
It has nothing to do with "intelligence". In fact, the ability to survive and adapt in the face of a such horrible 4000 year long onslaught would indicate quite the opposite. A very high level of intelligence.
So before you talk all that shit, study history. And not just the history of Africa.
The fact that the average "black" African can efficiently communicate with a much wider variety of peoples than David Mills, by my standards (and who says my standards is any less legitimate than Mills') proves that Mills is, on the average, waaaaayyy less intelligent than the average "black" African.
Fisher, you continue to spin your wheels. See if you can follow this line of thought:
Take an African individual who can speak five languages fluently. (And set aside the question how the mere ability to speak makes one intelligent. Couldn't he be stupid as fuck in all five language? For the sake of illustration, let's say he's intelligent.)
Now... how many other individuals could he speak to -- and transmit his ideas to -- at any given moment?
Without an electrical device to amplify his voice, and without recording equipment to capture his voice, we're talking about, what, a couple hundred people? And then his words disappear into the ether.
That's the problem with an oral tradition as the basis of a civilization. Because not matter how brilliant a guy happens to be... his words are gone as soon as he speaks them. And his ideas die with him.
Which makes it difficult for each generation to built upon the knowledge base of the previous generation.
Let's get on the same page, Fisher. I am NOT talking about the cognitive capacity of individuals, I am talking about the intellectual development of civilizations.
I am talking about the advantages that accrue to a culture that can preserve its ideas in writing, and build upon those ideas from generation to generation.
A lunatic who can write in only one language can have more impact on the world than a brilliant man who can speak Xhosa, Zulu, English and Afrikaans... but cannot write.
It's all about the written word.
Mills...
"I'm talking about the intellectual development of civilizations."
And what are "civilzations" made up off?
Come one Mills. Give us the answer.
Even you should be able to figure this out. Let your "white intellectual genes" kick in for a change.
tick, tock, tick, tock...
Time's up...
Persons. David. Individual people.
Civilizations are made up of individual people.
"Western European cultures -- regardless of whatever forces made them the way they are -- have advantages that Southern African cultures do not, due to Europe's intellectual history."
No, not due to their "intellectual history" but due to accidents of history. Such as the Germans having been accepted into the Roman Empire when they were fleeing the Huns by the Romans and thus introduced to such concepts as concept of "windows" (Latin Fenestra, German: Fenster), conquered, as the Visigoths of the Iberian peninsula were, by the Moors, that is "dark-skinned" "wooly" haired Arabs (actually North-west Africans and Berbers) who taught the navigation, and from whose libraries Henry the "Navigator" who never navigated jack shit, got the technology to outfit ocean-going ships.
This at the same time as "black" Africans had to fight never ending rear-guard actions for survival.
If you understood anything about the history of the African people than you would understand that they lost their writing systems...
Could you educate me further about this? Writing systems like which?
Mills...
"A lunatic who can write in only one language can have more impact on the world than a brilliant man who can speak Xhosa, Zulu, English and Afrikaans... but cannot write."
That type of drivel is to be expected from a lesser intellectually developed individual such as yourself who can only communicate in one language - barely.
Tsk, tsk. The prejudices of the ignorant. Well, it's understandable. A blind man can not hope to understand what it is to be able to see. The same thing about being able to communicate in several languages.
By the way. Did you invent the telephone?
Can you build one?
Can you build a pencil?
Create paper?
What about math?
What?
Telling stories is all you can do?
And you take credit for the folks that actually produced the things that enables you to write? You think that therefore you are "intellectually developed" as compared to someone, let's say in the woods of Scandinavia who, by accident of history and birth, was not exposed to the same?
Does that mean that you can not learn how to create a telephone?
See Mills. At the end of the day your bigoted core comes to fore every time.
Pisher, you're a piece of work.
And may I suggest you formulate your half-ass ripostes on a word-processing program and then cut-'n'-paste 'em here?
That way, you won't be constantly deleting and revising yer own comments, littering every comment thread you visit with "comment deleted" notices. Which I -- having an impulse towards order -- must then clean up.
I'm tired of following you around with a shovel like the lowest-paid guy at the circus. Thanks.
Mills...
"Could you educate me further about this? Writing systems like which?"
You mean besides the Metu Neter of ancient the ancient Africans of KMT, or Meroitic writing system of the ancient Africans of Meroe of Sudan, oh Ignoramus-One?
Take your pick.
Interesting. Your bigotry is so deeply ingrained it never even occurred to you to do a simple google search, key word "African writing systems"?
(((shakin' head in disgust)))
Interesting. Your bigotry is so deeply ingrained it never even occurred to you to do a simple google search, key word "African writing systems"?
Oh, I already done wiki'd "African writing systems," Pisher. I just wanted you on record before I chumped you again.
Mills...
"I'm tired of following you around with a shovel like the lowest-paid guy at the circus."
Hey, that's the job your black genes qualify you for. Just tryin' to make you feel useful.
Don't worry, be happy.
^ Seriously, though... Microsoft Word rocks.
"(Ain't you sorry you started fucking with me, Fish?)"
Heh.
It's interesting to note that Japan and China--which already had written languages for millennia prior to their contact with the west--are today competing with the West.
The fact that whites intervened in Africa in brutal ways and practiced black slavery doesn't mean that whites somehow prevented Africans from making civilizational leaps that were just forthcoming. It's hard to argue that white actions in africa had a retarding influence on African civilizational development when nothing in African history suggests suggests a capacity for such development.
China and Japan drew upon their own extensive histories of organization and government and learning to readily take advantage of Western knowledge. Those ingredients weren't avalaible in black Africa, hence why it is still a basket case.
Michael Fisher wants to force Mills into saying that blacks are genetically handicapped in intelligence. I'm not a hard line IQist, but I do believe IQ scores tell us something--and given all the available evidence, I see no reason why IQ differentials can't be ONE possible explanation for why Africa is Africa and Europe is Europe.
abe...
"It's hard to argue that white actions in africa had a retarding influence on African civilizational development when nothing in African history suggests suggests a capacity for such development."
Do you agree with this statement, Mills?
Who is he and why do you two verbally spar? What was the original argument about?
Oh, don't mind us, Geneva Girl. We're just two dudes with too much time on our hands.
In a nutshell, though, the core of our disagreement (and his disagreements with bloggers such as Cobb and Denmark Vesey) is that Fisher's entire Web presence is devoted to the notion of a "Global System of White Supremacy" that keeps black folks down.
Whereas I am convinced such black-nationalist horseshit is harmful to black people, because it focuses so much mental energy outside of oneself and onto white people -- the power white people wield, the bad stuff white people did historically, the reparations that white people owe, the thoughtcrimes committed by random whites today.
The irony is that, having been educated at Yale, Fisher benefited greatly from the unique intellectual accomplishments of the white West... yet, politically, he cannot give white folks credit for this intellectual legacy.
He must instead invoke the long-dead Meroitic alphabet to convince himself that Africans could've been the ones to put a man on the moon instead of white folks.
And Fisher must relentlessly attack the character of anyone who dares tell him that's a ludicrous proposition.
Do you agree with this statement, Mills?
No, Pisher. Because there's no way to ascertain people's "capacity" for civilizational development.
We can, however, make observations about how civilizations did develop.
To re-ground the conversation on Zimbabwe, for example, we can observe that at the time the British showed up in the 1890s, the Shona people had no alphabet. Therefore, the Shona people weren't on a path towards harnessing electricity or designing aeroplanes. They just weren't rolling like that.
So, Fish, if you want to argue with Abe, argue with Abe. If you wanna deal with me, deal with my arguments... which are stated with care and precision.
(By the way... when do you fucking sleep?)
What is "sleep"? I'm familiar with "work", but "sleep"?
Mills...
"Therefore, the Shona people weren't on a path towards harnessing electricity or designing aeroplanes. They just weren't rolling like that."
Whether therefore, or not. What does that have to do with th eprice of tea in China?
How does that justify the theft of their land, the exploitation of their involuntary labor, the lynchings, and killings, and the general mistreatment that the white people who call themselves "British" meted out?
Is it really your position that (de facto) slavery in exchange for an electrical grid is a fair trade?
Mills...
"Because there's no way to ascertain people's 'capacity' for civilizational development."
ughhh... except in the case of the people of Zimbabwe, of course...
"Zimbabwe will never be -- and could never be -- what England is."
Looks like an ascertaining of a people's capacity for civilizational development to me.
You need to climb out of that spinning bigot shit hole, Mills. You're starting to argue with yourself.
I'm beginning to feel like a third wheel in this debate between David Mills and Mills' David.
How does that justify the theft of their land, the exploitation of their involuntary labor, the lynchings, and killings, and the general mistreatment that the white people who call themselves "British" meted out?
Who said it did? (Enough with the straw men, Michael!)
But wouldn't you agree that the ability to read and write English has been a civilization advancement for the people of Zimbabwe... and is better than being illiterate?
(By the way, Zimbabwe has a literacy rate of 91 percent... the highest in Africa, far as I can tell. Higher than South Africa's even.)
Mills...
"having been educated at Yale, Fisher benefited greatly from the unique intellectual accomplishments of the white West... yet, politically, he cannot give white folks credit for this intellectual legacy."
You're really overrating Yale. There ain't nothing you can learn at Yale you can't learn at the local library.
Yale is more of a social network for the advancement of a type of self-classified "blue bloods" as a substitute for the European nobility.
It's mostly a lot of hype.
Same with Harvard.
While you are certainly misstating my views on white supremacy, this is an interesting statement:
"He must instead invoke the long-dead Meroitic alphabet to convince himself that Africans could've been the ones to put a man on the moon instead of white folks."
Did the British put a man on the moon?
Mills...
"But wouldn't you agree that the ability to read and write English has been a civilization advancement for the people of Zimbabwe... and is better than being illiterate?"
Sure, I like reading and writing. is my favorite past time, but not in exchange for theft and slavery.
The point is, Mills, and it is a point I made to you many moons ago,
... the point is that humans need to be engaged in fair trade, If I have a resource that you benefit from and you have knowledge that i benefit from, we can make a fair trade.
If you know how to farm more efficiently and I own the land we can arrange a lease land for knowledge exchange.
But theft?
Come on now.
"Because there's no way to ascertain people's "capacity" for civilizational development."
Is it too out there to say that a people who have excessive concern about tribalism aren't going to make as much progress as a people who don't have such hang ups?
I immigrated from Somalia and I know as a matter of fact that so long as the people there have such hangups about tribalism and are seemingly so shortsighted, they aren't to get anywhere. These sort of mores and cultural attitudes preclude cooperation and, consequently, any sort of sustained development and progress.
It's why blaming whites is so ridiculous.
abe...
"I immigrated from Somalia..."
Why is Somalia a member of the Arab League?
Abe...
"...nothing in African history suggests suggests a capacity for [African civilizational development]."
Have you ever heard of a country in East Africa called Ethiopia?
I think that country may be somewhere in the vicinity of Somalia.
The fact that whites intervened in Africa in brutal ways and practiced black slavery doesn't mean that whites somehow prevented Africans from making civilizational leaps that were just forthcoming. It's hard to argue that white actions in africa had a retarding influence on African civilizational development when nothing in African history suggests suggests a capacity for such development. -- Abe
That is a statement of incredible historical ignorance. The ghost of David Hume, Thomas Jefferson, Joseph Arthur de Gobineau, Lothrop Stoddard, Arnold Toynbee, and PW Botha lives and writes on UCBM.
I am apt to suspect the Negroes…to be naturally inferior to the White. There never was a civilized nation of any other complexion than white, nor even any individual eminent either in action or speculation, no ingenious manufacturers amongst them, no arts, or sciences. (The ghost of David Hume reflected in dishonest Abe)
When we classify mankind by color, the only one of the primary races…which has not made a creative contribution to any of our twenty-one civilizations is the black race. (The ghost of Arnold Toynbee reflected in disingenuous Abe)
“It was the Egyptian god Thoth, I am told, who invented numbers and arithmetic, geometry and astronomy, not to mention draughts, dice, and in particular, the alphabet.” Socrates in Plato’s Phaedrus
“And thus Egypt was the cradle of the mathematical arts.” Aristotle in Metaphysics
“All freemen, I conceive, should learn as much of these branches of knowledge (arts and mathematics) as every child in Egypt is taught when he learns the alphabet. In that country arithmetical games have been invented for the use of mere children, which they learn as a pleasure and amusement. They have to distribute apples and garlands, using the same number sometimes for a larger and sometimes for a lesser number of persons; and they arrange pugilists, and wrestlers as they pair together by lot or remain over, and show how their turns come in natural order. Another mode of amusing them is to distribute vessels, sometimes of gold, brass, silver, and the like, intermixed with one another, sometimes of one metal only; as I was saying they adapt to their amusement the numbers in common use, and in this way make more intelligible to their pupils the arrangements and movements of armies and expeditions, in the management of a household they make people more useful to themselves, and more wide awake; and again in measurements of things which have length, and breadth, and depth, they free us from that natural ignorance of all these things which is so ludicrous and disgraceful.” Plato’s Laws
(Abe, is Plato really saying that the Ancient Greeks had a natural ignorance of the arts and mathematics and that they really needed a system of education comparable to that of the Afrikan civilization in Ancient KMT? Coming from someone like Plato that has to be tough stuff for a mental slave to swallow.)
“The superior germ-stuff of the great white race is completely discredited by the fact that our ancestors remained in the wings, pure barbarians, during the two thousand years when the dark men of the Mediterranean race were constructing civilization, and that our white race first in the Greeks and then in the Teutons, devastated civilization for centuries. Until about 700 BC the philosophers of the world would have said that white men seemed incapable of civilization… None of our modern sophistry redeems the squalor of Europe from the fifth to the eleventh century. And it was again the dark-skinned men of the south who restored civilization. By the year 1,000 Europe was reduced to a condition which, if we were not Europeans we should frankly call barbarism… We write manuals of the history of Europe or of the Middle Ages and we confine ourselves to a small squalid area (Russia and Prussia were not yet civilized and Spain was Moorish)…” Joseph McCabe—The New Science and the Story of Evolution.
On no continent did all people develop simultaneously based on some universal standard. There are various ethnic groups in Europe who have contributed absolutely nothing to the advancement of civilization. They learned from others either via force or proximity.
This argument that some ethnic groups in Afrika did not accomplish this or that by European standards is ludicrous. The entire Western World is constructed on a foundation of Afrikan scholarship, scientific and spiritual development.
Abe just for starters your mis-education can be corrected by reading the following:
Introduction to African Civilizations by John G. Jackson
The Destruction of Black Civilization by Chancellor Williams
The African Origin of Civilization by Cheikh Anta Diop
Nile Valley Contributions to Civilization by Anthony Browder
African Philosophy—The Pharaonic Period: 2780-300 BC by Theophile Obenga
When you finish those books, come back and I’ll give you 150 more to read.
You're really overrating Yale. There ain't nothing you can learn at Yale you can't learn at the local library.
Sounds like Yale overrated you, Fish.
Who paid for that education, by the way? (If you will allow such a personal question.)
Personally, after reading the whole thread, I thought Fisher dealt with you.
But, that's just my opinion.
Personally, after reading the whole thread, I thought Fisher dealt with you.
Thanks for the comment, Big Man. That's why I enjoy these discussions. Put all the arguments out there and let people make up their own minds.
Sure, I like reading and writing. is my favorite past time, but not in exchange for theft and slavery.
Sounds like you wish a world in which most Africans would be illiterate.
The irony is that black-nationalist self-esteem trippers like yourself tend to boast about the medieval universities of Timbuktu, which were great centers of learning. But the language read, written and taught there was Arabic... and the Arab presence in Africa brought slavery-as-commerce.
And, like you say, since knowledge in exchange for slavery is a bum deal, wipe away the history of Timbuktu. Its black scholars would've been better off illiterate.
Put another way: their intellectual development was fed by the blood, tears and sweat of millions of enslaved Africans!
Mills...
"Sounds like Yale overrated you, Fish."
Could very well be.
"Who paid for that education, by the way?"
With the exception of a small scholarship from a black fraternity, I did.
"Sounds like you wish a world in which most Africans would be illiterate."
Lemme see...
What are my choices here...
Getting my ass beat on a daily, my children sold off, my wife raped, me raped, and being able to read and write in Arabic/English/French/Portuguese/German...
or...
Hmmmmm.
Naw, unlike you I don't enjoy getting my ass torn up.
So I think I'd rather stay with the not-being-able-to-read-and-write thing and, if that's the worst case scenario, wearing a grass skirt and a bone through my nose.
Who knows, maybe I'd come up with my own unique writing system.
But hey, to each his own.
You do what you enjoy.
I bet you the first time you get slashed across that ass of yours with a nice long whip, you'll forget all about your literacy real quick.
So I think I'd rather stay with the not-being-able-to-read-and-write thing and, if that's the worst case scenario, wearing a grass skirt and a bone through my nose.
Who knows, maybe I'd come up with my own unique writing system.
Anything's possible, I suppose.
But it is refreshing to see someone make the case for illiteracy. Well done, Fish.
Pisher and pills put on one helluva coonshow!!!
Pisher relentlessly plays his part as THE whitest acting, most zero-sum game pursuing rhetorician on the net. Diss mahphukka still stuck on the serial destruction of any possibility of cooperating and collaborating with ANY other Black blogger online today.
First he started out against the afrosphere/whataboutourdaughters crew, then he moved on to Cobb, then onto CNu, now he's embarked on a relentless pursuit of UBM - here, there, and everywhere - this sorry son of a sea biscuit is pathologically incapable of playing well with others. What is wrong with an allegedly grown-ass man who obsessively and compulsively acts this way?
How do you become so fixated on the mere appearance of a pyrrhic victory that you completely lose sight of the real world implications of your behavior?
Pisher has permanently crippled his own ability to accomplish anything requiring the involvement of others online.
What a tragically STOOPID ass.....,
Pretty soon, he'll be as washed up and excluded from the blogospheric game as he is in the concert promotion/music bidnis game.
Pills, pills, pills...., how did you get yourself in the middle of this mudslinging mess?
As a screenwriter - you of ALL PEOPLE should know, understand, and represent the primacy of collaborative effort in storytelling, politicking, or any other worthwhile human endeavor.
How comes it that you can't simply play the adult role here and extract yourself from all this unproductive, zero-sum hot mess?
Haven't you gone down this rhetorical path a time or two too many now ya-dayyum self?
I'll tell you what, you two silly, middle-aged nuccaz personally exemplify - by your own petty and childish behaviour put on broad public display - exactly why y'all ain't never been shit, ain't shit right now, and definitely never will be shit.
Does somebody pay you dumbasses to be so stoopid, petty, and divisive - or is this all just your natural nucca natures getting the best of you? over, and over, and over again?
Still seems odd to me to count out cultural influences as factors determining outcomes since culture generally determines the perception of need and ambition.
Again look at religion. Many original African religions accepted whatever form God took as sole benefactor of their fortunes. European religions did also - originally - but Europeans conveniently changed and fought over their religions to allow them the flexibility to stretch beyond God. That was the core beginning of philosophy -where God ends and where I begin.
Add to that necessities that were created by warfare, trade, etc..
Again, my point, David, is that to go all the way to intellectual development as catch all for why societies dominate or do not is, to my thinking, unfair if you don't consider other factors.
I'm not of the "everything African is good" ilk. I've been too many times to know that's not true. But without question, you need t take a trip there to understand how wrong you are about the influence of environment on development.
There are place in African where you will stand and they are so powerfully beautiful and spiritual and all you wil think is "This must never change." Now project that thought onto a people growing up in that environment and see how that chnages your perception of what is truly valuable.
To use a lyrical analogy, "Why pave paradise to build a parking lot?"
I don't think you're a racist. I just think you've been in America too long.
The very concept of wealth as defined today is rooted in personal ownership and transfer of wealth outside of the cooperative. We value wealth as defined today because we have been born to it. Doesn't mean wealth creation is inherently good....
Europe dominated because it had the worst weather, the closest borders for warfare and the least food. They HAD to innovate. Doesn't make them inherently more intelligent - just centuries of skill sets unnecessary on regions with relative plenty.
eeaster ain't told no lies...,
which only begs the question of why these two allegedly grown-assed men enact a virtual european death match in the rhetorical space rather than cooperating to try and suss out the truth as closely as that can be endeavored?
I'd never thought I'd say this but it seems like UBM has been thoroughly indoctrinated. Although I agree with the points about the strength of the written word, does UBM not find it plausible that all traces of writing in Africa has been destroyed like the knowledge once held in the library of Alexandria? People of Sub-Saharan descent can't even begin to imagine all the knowledge lost to us. Look to Australia to see how blacks have been marginalized and plied with beer. The Australian blacks also have to contend with their children (by white men) who are taken away by the state to be trained in the ways of western civilization and told they are the ones who will lead their darker brethren into the light. I mention Australia because we honestly cannot prove how folks really were in Africa or what they were capable of achieving. However in Australia, the chicanery is going on NOW.
^ Damn those white folks!
Meanwhile, who's working to eradicate Guinea worm disease?
Did the British put a man on the moon?
A collection of former British colonies did, Fish. Inheritors of the European intellectual legacy did.
..."lets get it own, ...lets get it oh-on" M.Gay
Man, you guys are throwing down, and both of you have great points. But some of the most profound knowledge cannot even be put into words, so in that case words are useless be they written or spoken.
Also, shit, ...nobody would've made it to the moon without balistics, which was derived from mathmatics stolen from Egypt.
...hell, intellect is great but how smart are you if your intellectualism and scientific endeavors result in the pollution of your air, water, and food; the destruction of your environment; the annihilation of your fellow human and animal brothers; the corruption and perversion of your mind and body; the exhaustion of the natural resources created for all beings, etc., etc..
Shit, seems to me that the more motha fuckers think, analyze, civilize, and progress, the more they fuck shit up.
...but I get the points.
Peace
A lotta dick-swinging on this one. I think E put it best and to paraphrase, maybe we've all been in America too long. There's a lotta red, white, and blue hype that I think isn't as deserved as the expounders expound. Especially since some of the most loud trumpeters (and I'm not saying this about you, Dave) have never been to three other States, let alone three or more other countries.
Mills...
"A collection of former British colonies did, Fish. Inheritors of the European intellectual legacy did.
Inheritors of the European intellectual legacy did."
So you are saying that the British did not put a man on the moon.
However, the German Nazis DID put a man on the moon.
Did you know that?
So does that make the Nazis intellectually more developed than the British?
^ Fisher, that revolutionary anarchist "lakeside" is right. Let's kiss and make up.
Oh, that intelligence discussion is long over. At the very least since the time I donned that grass skirt and put that bone in my nose.
I'm just havin' fun now.
You're supposed to say:
"What Nazis? Are you nuts?"
And I'm supposed to come back and tell you all about Werner von Braun and his team in the USA and display my vast knowledge of history, social, and technological affairs.
Oh well.
So be it...
(smack)
(don't misinterpret that, now folks)
And I'm supposed to come back and tell you all about Werner von Braun and his team in the USA and display my vast knowledge of history, social, and technological affairs.
And I'd say that if not for the British, the Nazis might indeed have been the ones to land a man on the moon.
Which means it's not enough to be smart. You gotta have God on your side.
There will always be an England.
There will always be an England.
And the sun might never set on you two crazy bitch-slapping mofos.
Thank you to lakeside for leading this long thread out of the dark woods.
^ Dude... this was a wonderful conversation! You should be grateful you got to read it for free.
Northern Europeans were quite primitive until recently. The Arabs, Romans, and Greeks thought of them as savages. And they were illiterate, human sacrifice practicing, sometimes cannibalistic, savages. The Romans, Arabs, and Turks took millions of people out of northern Europe as slaves.
Their achievement over the past eon or so has been impressive, and worthy of emulation the world over. They did not, however, develop anything remotely approaching civilization on their own.
It took a god awful long time for the Northern Euros to reach the level of prosperity, literacy, and stability that the (substantially black) ancient Egyptians, and the Chinese, had enjoyed for thousands of years.
If you want to know the basic level of civilization there, check out a working class Glasgow neighborhood when the bars let out, or a Moscow housing project.
Mills, England these days is looking particularly ghetto. (If you had substituted Japan, or Hong Kong, then maybe I'd cut you some slack.)
Oh, I notice the Assault is off your blogroll.
Wonder why...?
^ The idiotic personal attacks were getting a bit much.
LOL. Dang. I done thought we had kissed and made up.
...Fisher. Who is he...?
Forget Fisher (and Mills, for that matter). Who is Lakeside?
No offense UBM. :)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4572219.stm
Post a Comment