caribny posted:

As were your ancestors in India so stupid that they fell for a trick that had them spend months on a boat, many dying and then to be treated scarcely better than slaves at the end of the trip.   May dying there too.  They even lived in the same dwellings that the slaves abandoned when they left the plantation.  And yes that whip was sometimes used.

An Indian like you  talking calling black people docile is a joke given that your national anthem "black man a kill ahbe".

How you know I am Indian? Did I make such a claim?  

They Indos gave the english some of the roughest fights ever. The Blacks in comparison were not even worth their while to occupy their lands as there was nothing to plunder other than slaves.  In fact you will recall that the great Mahatma was singlehandedly responsible for the fall of the british empire and forced it to give independence to its colonies. 

caribny posted:

Drugb posted:

Even the article by Henry Gates proves my point. Out of almost 4 million slaves, this is just a handful of rebellions in ratio.  You can get away with almost anything with uneducated people, so I have to dumb down my writings when conversing with some.  

As an inhabitant of Georgetown you know of the Cuffy statue. In fact in 1763 the slaves almost drove the Dutch out of Berbice.  There were many other slave rebellions in Guyana and in fact the one in 1823 was partially responsible for the British finally abandoning slavery. 

Constantly spending money to put down slave rebellions, especially in Jamaica and Guyana, proved to be no longer worth it as their Caribbean colonies began to be less valuable.   Turns out that abusing Indians was more profitable for the British Empire.

Read and weep why the british abandoned slavery. They no longer needed slaves as economic interest changed. 

http://abolition.e2bn.org/slavery_111.html

caribny posted:

Drugb posted:

 You can get away with almost anything with uneducated people, so I have to dumb down my writings when conversing with some.  

Druggie the only uneducated people here are you and the rest of the Indo KKK gang.  The rest of us, including PPP supporters who aren't part of the Indo KKK, are more educated.

The only education that you and others received was at my hands over years. They schooling I gave you must amount to 100's of thousands of US dollars. 

Drugb posted:

 

How you know I am Indian? Did I make such a claim?  

 

You like to show your face on GNI. Yes that time when you swam in the sewerage drain that is the Demerara River.  No wonder you are even more brain damaged than you used to be.

Drugb posted:

Bannas, them slaves were mostly docile and 100's of yall were controlled by 1 white  overseer with  a whip. The 1 and 2 that behave bad were castrated as lesson to the others. I suggest you watch roots and learn how Kunta Kinte chose amputation to castration just so he could carry on the bloodline.  Others were not so fortunate to be given that choice. 

The ignorance of this black skin Dalit progeny of teefmen. For over 200 years the white man beat alyuh rass wid de whip and rule alyuh in India. Over 35 million Indians died and by the time the white man left in 1947 India was a shit nation, reduced to rubble after being a once great civilization. Talk about "docile".

I take no joy in saying this nor mean no disrespect to Indians. I mention it only to educate yuh dumb Dalit ass. Yuh live in a glass house fool! 

Your obsession with black man private parts, slavery, rape and castration is noted. The slave masters were likewise obsessed with it, insomuch that unable to service their wives, they allowed slaves to do it for them. Might this be the reason for your frustration and frequent trips to Newark?

caribny posted:

Drugb posted:

 

How you know I am Indian? Did I make such a claim?  

 

You like to show your face on GNI. Yes that time when you swam in the sewerage drain that is the Demerara River.  No wonder you are even more brain damaged than you used to be.

That wasn't me.

Drugb posted:

 

Read and weep why the british abandoned slavery. They no longer needed slaves as economic interest changed. 

http://abolition.e2bn.org/slavery_111.html

They added up the costs of continuing slavery and putting down endless slave rebellions made it no longer worth it. Sugar was no longer profitable for them. They could well have saved the millions of pounds that they used to compensate the former slave owners by simply abandoning them. But they didn't.

Exploiting your ancestors and forcing them into famines was more to their liking.  Druggie your need to fool yourself that Indians are superior to blacks is one of the most hilarious aspects of your stupidity.  Given the histories of both Guyanese groups, and the fact that most now live in various stages of poverty, such discussion is senseless.

Drugb posted:

caribny posted:

Drugb posted:

 

How you know I am Indian? Did I make such a claim?  

 

You like to show your face on GNI. Yes that time when you swam in the sewerage drain that is the Demerara River.  No wonder you are even more brain damaged than you used to be.

That wasn't me.

And you screaming about beating Nuff in a race.  That wasn't you either?  Listen take that to Iguana or some other newbie who doesn't know your history.

Drugb posted:

 

They Indos gave the english some of the roughest fights ever. The Blacks in comparison were not even worth their while to occupy their lands as there was nothing to plunder other than slaves.  In fact you will recall that the great Mahatma was singlehandedly responsible for the fall of the british empire and forced it to give independence to its colonies. 

The sad thing is you do not read. Africa was not explored farther up from the coast by whites for centuries because the rivers are fast flowing and drop to the sea rapidly making travel inland seasonal and very hard. Most whites did not know what was inland until late in the 19th century. This was a development trap.

Slaves were brought to the cost by non white traders.  White folks hardly went inland or cared to go.

The decline of the British empire was not as simplistic as Gandhi did it. You are truly living in your own reality.

Drugb posted:

caribny posted:

Drugb posted:

 

How you know I am Indian? Did I make such a claim?  

 

You like to show your face on GNI. Yes that time when you swam in the sewerage drain that is the Demerara River.  No wonder you are even more brain damaged than you used to be.

That wasn't me.

Dude, I guess the Demerara river water with its assortment of human excrement affected your brain. 

Drugb posted:

How you know I am Indian?

https://guyana.crowdstack.io/topic/d...our-attention?page=2

Drugb Senior Member

3/24/172:31 PM

Nonsense, I met Andre in the flesh and gave my full name to all, including Mara, Nuff, BK and Andre. That was the event when I shut that loud mouth Daivid Blue, he swallowed his words that no Indo can beat him in a race.  

Goads da runner..

...hahahahahaha....... just as I thought..... he is a Dalit. In fact he looks like a black man. Oh the torture this Dalit must go through when he looks in a mirror.  LMAO.

cain posted:

Goads da runner..

he used to train the neighborhood rice eaters. They chase he run on them spindly legs. 

D2 posted:

Drugb posted:

 

They Indos gave the english some of the roughest fights ever. The Blacks in comparison were not even worth their while to occupy their lands as there was nothing to plunder other than slaves.  In fact you will recall that the great Mahatma was singlehandedly responsible for the fall of the british empire and forced it to give independence to its colonies. 

The sad thing is you do not read. Africa was not explored farther up from the coast by whites for centuries because the rivers are fast flowing and drop to the sea rapidly making travel inland seasonal and very hard. Most whites did not know what was inland until late in the 19th century. This was a development trap.

Slaves were brought to the cost by non white traders.  White folks hardly went inland or cared to go.

The decline of the British empire was not as simplistic as Gandhi did it. You are truly living in your own reality.

Nonsense, the British saw little profit in Africa other than its slave labor. Africa was so backwards compared to the rest of the world that the continent with the exception of he north had very little to exploit. For you to belittle the accomplishments of the Gandhi is wicked and downright low.

Drugb posted:

D2 posted:

Drugb posted:

 

They Indos gave the english some of the roughest fights ever. The Blacks in comparison were not even worth their while to occupy their lands as there was nothing to plunder other than slaves.  In fact you will recall that the great Mahatma was singlehandedly responsible for the fall of the british empire and forced it to give independence to its colonies. 

The sad thing is you do not read. Africa was not explored farther up from the coast by whites for centuries because the rivers are fast flowing and drop to the sea rapidly making travel inland seasonal and very hard. Most whites did not know what was inland until late in the 19th century. This was a development trap.

Slaves were brought to the cost by non white traders.  White folks hardly went inland or cared to go.

The decline of the British empire was not as simplistic as Gandhi did it. You are truly living in your own reality.

Nonsense, the British saw little profit in Africa other than its slave labor. Africa was so backwards compared to the rest of the world that the continent with the exception of he north had very little to exploit. For you to belittle the accomplishments of the Gandhi is wicked and downright low.

If you do not read and are given to useless pontification I cannot help. I give you the reason why the British saw little profit in Africa hence it remained largely unknown to them for a long time. It was highly inaccessible from the coast with ships and demanded long trek with pack animals .  Obviously is bound bountiful since they fought tooth and nail to keep it their share of it. Gandhi is irrelevant to the discussion since he is an artifact of the 20th century and long after slavery was gone.

D2 posted:

If you do not read and are given to useless pontification I cannot help. I give you the reason why the British saw little profit in Africa hence it remained largely unknown to them for a long time. It was highly inaccessible from the coast with ships and demanded long trek with pack animals .  Obviously is bound bountiful since they fought tooth and nail to keep it their share of it. Gandhi is irrelevant to the discussion since he is an artifact of the 20th century and long after slavery was gone.

Nonsense, inland trek did not stop the occupation of south america by the Europeans once they discovered that there was profit to be gained. 

D2 posted:

 Africa was not explored farther up from the coast by whites for centuries because the rivers are fast flowing and drop to the sea rapidly making travel inland seasonal and very hard.

Not true.  The River Niger is navigable at considerable distances from the coast, as are several other rivers.  West Africa is mainly low lying in the near coastal regions in most instances.  The mountains of Nigeria and Ghana, two of the largest suppliers of enslaved peoples, are well inland.

The truth is that the African kingdoms were too powerful, and combined with susceptibility to tropical diseases and the high humidity battling these empires wouldn't have been possible.  The Africans had immunity to various European diseases, so didn't collapse in the way that the various Amerindian empires of Mexico and South America did when the locals died from diseases brought in by the Spanish.

The wealth generated by slaves in the Americas and the importance of this slavery to continue to generate such wealth was such that if it was possible for the Europeans to reduce the cost of slave acquisition from African traders they would have done so.

Silly druggie is too unintelligent and ignorant to know that in the late 17th century and the early 18th Jamaica generated more wealth than did all of the British colonies in North America. And that Martinique generated more than did Quebec.  And of course Ste Domingue (Haiti) was even wealthier than these.

I will watch him run to Wikipedia to post an article that undermines his argument simply because he cannot understand it.

Drugb posted:

 

Nonsense, the British saw little profit in Africa other than its slave labor. Africa was so backwards compared to the rest of the world that the continent with the exception of he north had very little to exploit. For you to belittle the accomplishments of the Gandhi is wicked and downright low.

Druggie silly man.  Research ancient Timbuktu and we can get back to African "backwardness".  When I was in school our history teacher gave us a translation of an account by a Dutch sailor who visited one of the Yoruba kingdoms.  He was very impressed with the efficiency of the cities that he saw and their levels of cleanliness and the fact that they had systems to remove human waste.  Note that these cities weren't much smaller than many in Europe.  Peoples from this part of Africa were also skilled in metallurgy, and those in Ghana (Gold Coast) in gold smelting.

Guess which was the most valuable asset in the USA in 1860.  SLAVES, and that is even after states like NY had already abolished slavery.  Guess which were the richest colonies in the 18th century?  Jamaica, Haiti, Barbados and Brazil. Note that none of these colonies functioned without slaves

So go cry druggie as another attempt by you to paint black worthlessness isn't working.  Without slaves there is NO WAY that colonies in the Caribbean or Brazil would have been so wealthy. And given that they had to BUY these slaves from Africans this means that the available of slaves in West Africa was of great value to them.

Put it another way druggie, but for the Transatlantic slave trade you wouldn't be Guyanese.  You would be starving in some village in Uttar Pradesh, squatting outside of your hut trying to have a bowel movement.

Drugb posted:

.

Nonsense, inland trek did not stop the occupation of south america by the Europeans once they discovered that there was profit to be gained. 

Yes when history was taught those Portuguese boys were beating you up.  So brain damaged as you were then, and are today you missed the part about the fact that it was European diseases which led to the collapse of the Inca and Aztec empires.

West Africans had contact with European microbes as they had contact with that region via the Trans Sahara trade. In terms of diseases they had an advantage in that a measles didn't kill them as it did the Amerindians, but malaria certainly killed the northern Europeans.

D2 posted:

 

If you do not read and are given to useless pontification I cannot help. I give you the reason why the British saw little profit in Africa hence it remained largely unknown to them for a long time.

The reason was that the Europeans were vulnerable to tropical diseases.  By the late 19thC when knowledge about treating these diseases became available then tropical regions became populated.

You will note that the temperate parts of Africa (the southern regions) were populated by the 18th C.  The British/Dutch were in South Africa and the Portuguese had a presence in Angola and Mozambique.

Ayuh still with this rice stupitness!!  Carib, you gatt nuff time pon yuh haan!!

Drugb posted:

Drugb posted:

D2 posted:

If you do not read and are given to useless pontification I cannot help. I give you the reason why the British saw little profit in Africa hence it remained largely unknown to them for a long time. It was highly inaccessible from the coast with ships and demanded long trek with pack animals .  Obviously is bound bountiful since they fought tooth and nail to keep it their share of it. Gandhi is irrelevant to the discussion since he is an artifact of the 20th century and long after slavery was gone.

Nonsense, inland trek did not stop the occupation of south america by the Europeans once they discovered that there was profit to be gained. 

Again, your ignorance is in full flowering. I stated why and how it is different and can point you to the writing of many who asked why it took so long to enter the interior of Africa and the reasons supplied.

caribny posted:

Druggie silly man.  Research ancient Timbuktu and we can get back to African "backwardness".  When I was in school our history teacher gave us a translation of an account by a Dutch sailor who visited one of the Yoruba kingdoms.  He was very impressed with the efficiency of the cities that he saw and their levels of cleanliness and the fact that they had systems to remove human waste.  Note that these cities weren't much smaller than many in Europe.  Peoples from this part of Africa were also skilled in metallurgy, and those in Ghana (Gold Coast) in gold smelting.

Guess which was the most valuable asset in the USA in 1860.  SLAVES, and that is even after states like NY had already abolished slavery.  Guess which were the richest colonies in the 18th century?  Jamaica, Haiti, Barbados and Brazil. Note that none of these colonies functioned without slaves

So go cry druggie as another attempt by you to paint black worthlessness isn't working.  Without slaves there is NO WAY that colonies in the Caribbean or Brazil would have been so wealthy. And given that they had to BUY these slaves from Africans this means that the available of slaves in West Africa was of great value to them.

Put it another way druggie, but for the Transatlantic slave trade you wouldn't be Guyanese.  You would be starving in some village in Uttar Pradesh, squatting outside of your hut trying to have a bowel movement.

You don't have to tell me about Timbucku, in the past the comedians used to make fun of Blacks telling them to go back to Timbucktu. In fact it is used primarily as a humor by whites.

Linguistic humor, Timbuktu

The National Poetry Contest had come down to two semifinalists: a Yale graduate and a redneck from Wyoming. They were given a word, then allowed two minutes to study the word and come up with a poem that contained the word. The word they were given was "Timbuktu".

First to recite his poem was the Yale graduate. He stepped to the microphone and said:

Slowly across the desert sand 
Trekked a lonely caravan. 
Men on camels, two by two 
Destination---Timbuktu.

The crowd went crazy! No way could the redneck top that, they thought. The redneck calmly made his way to the microphone and recited:

Me and Tim a-huntin went, 
Met three whores in a pop up tent. 
They was three, and we was two, 
So I bucked one, and Timbuktu. 

The redneck won hands down!

D2 posted:

Drugb posted:

Drugb posted:

D2 posted:

If you do not read and are given to useless pontification I cannot help. I give you the reason why the British saw little profit in Africa hence it remained largely unknown to them for a long time. It was highly inaccessible from the coast with ships and demanded long trek with pack animals .  Obviously is bound bountiful since they fought tooth and nail to keep it their share of it. Gandhi is irrelevant to the discussion since he is an artifact of the 20th century and long after slavery was gone.

Nonsense, inland trek did not stop the occupation of south america by the Europeans once they discovered that there was profit to be gained. 

Again, your ignorance is in full flowering. I stated why and how it is different and can point you to the writing of many who asked why it took so long to enter the interior of Africa and the reasons supplied.

I answered, it was a waste of effort, no profit to gain. Africa's primary resource was its slave labor, why would white man go inland when blacks would do it for them and sell their own people for a few beads 

caribny posted:

D2 posted:

 Africa was not explored farther up from the coast by whites for centuries because the rivers are fast flowing and drop to the sea rapidly making travel inland seasonal and very hard.

Not true.  The River Niger is navigable at considerable distances from the coast, as are several other rivers.  West Africa is mainly low lying in the near coastal regions in most instances.  The mountains of Nigeria and Ghana, two of the largest suppliers of enslaved peoples, are well inland.

The truth is that the African kingdoms were too powerful, and combined with susceptibility to tropical diseases and the high humidity battling these empires wouldn't have been possible.  The Africans had immunity to various European diseases, so didn't collapse in the way that the various Amerindian empires of Mexico and South America did when the locals died from diseases brought in by the Spanish.

The wealth generated by slaves in the Americas and the importance of this slavery to continue to generate such wealth was such that if it was possible for the Europeans to reduce the cost of slave acquisition from African traders they would have done so.

Silly druggie is too unintelligent and ignorant to know that in the late 17th century and the early 18th Jamaica generated more wealth than did all of the British colonies in North America. And that Martinique generated more than did Quebec.  And of course Ste Domingue (Haiti) was even wealthier than these.

I will watch him run to Wikipedia to post an article that undermines his argument simply because he cannot understand it.

Africa in from the 16th century to the era of modern transportation has been problematic. In the study of economics and trade in Africa;  Fernan Broudel noted that

Geography is more important than history. Cultural exchange was even difficult for Africans. To the north was the vast Sahara. then there are the oceans on the other three sides. On the West in the sub Sahara regions, the smooth  sloping coastline prevented ocean going ships from having natural harbor. For centuries much of the ship traffic bypassed the west coast. Ships of the era needed wind for their sails and winds  were not reliable for the return trip to Europe either. It took later understanding of the currents to increase sailing ships here. Consequently little of African trade entered international commerce.

Consequently,  before  railroads and roads and plains,  "external influence filtered only very slowly drop by drop".  Escarpment, rift valleys and few navigable rivers affected development and this is besides the prevailing infecting and disease causing agents as the tsetse. The resulting isolating featrures of geography is seen in the  Linguistic fragmentation  of the region. It contains 1/3 of the language of the world even though it accounts for only 10 percent of the world population.  

Also, despite being larger than Europe its coastline is shorter and there is a lack of coastal indentation, peninsula  for natural harbors. Shallow coastal waters means  ships anchor off shore and smaller boats used to ferry goods.  Then there is the dearth of navigable rivers. Most river mouths are silted up or blocked by sand bars. The low irregular rainfall means that if one waits for deeper water one has only a short window to get up stream if possible.

No river in Africa except the Nile reaches far inland.Africa rivers that are seasonable navigable. These include the the Zaire river which while as prodigious as the amazon but only navigable short distance inland as falls and rapids block ocean going vessels up stream. A similar problem occurs with the Niger; it is not navigable by large ships and have and average dept of 4 meters in the dry season. Economically, much of what was in africa was not valuable enough to bring a return on investment except for Gold, Ivory and Slaves hence ivory and gold coast in West Africa.

You have to come up with rather strong reasons why trade did not develop to a high degree between Europe and Africa ( 16 to 19 century)  given the interior possesses many other things the European needed than slaves.

Drugb posted:

I answered, it was a waste of effort, no profit to gain. Africa's primary resource was its slave labor, why would white man go inland when blacks would do it for them and sell their own people for a few beads 

being shallow you cannot even interrogate there deficiencies of your own reasoning to yourself.

D2 posted:

caribny posted:

 

 

Africa in from the 16th century to the era of modern transportation has been problematic. In the study of economics and trade in Africa;  Fernan Broudel noted that

 

 

Timbuktu in today's Mali was an important of the Muslim civilization and its emperor well integrated into the world of North Africa and the Middle East.  In fact in the rainy season it is navigable as far inland as Mali.

So West Africa wasn't hampered by its isolation.  Do you know that the Kingom of the Kongo had an ambassador to the Vatican as early as the 16th century?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...ese_and_Christianity

The reason why the Americas was settled and not West Africa was because indigenous populations were tremendously weakened and so it was easy for Europeans to displace them. The highlands of Bolivia aren't connected to the Pacific Ocean by ocean and yet by the 16th C Potosi was a booming city.

West Africa had strong militaristic populations and Europeans succumbed to tropical diseases.  The Gold Coast and Nigeria ultimately evolved into very valuable British colonies, so its not that they lacked value. Its that the local empires in the 16-early 19th C were able to resist the incursions of the Europeans.

What you describe better fits central and southern regions of Africa which were isolated from the rest of the world.  The Sahel empires of West Africa were fully integrated into the rest of the world. The scholars at Oxford were fully aware of Timbuktu as a center of scholarship.

D2 posted:

Drugb posted:

I answered, it was a waste of effort, no profit to gain. Africa's primary resource was its slave labor, why would white man go inland when blacks would do it for them and sell their own people for a few beads 

being shallow you cannot even interrogate there deficiencies of your own reasoning to yourself.

Druggie is so silly that he sincerely believes that Africans 
sold their own people for a few beads".  No some people became fantastically wealthy and even now some families with wealth obtained that wealth through slavery.

caribny posted:

D2 posted:

caribny posted:

 

 

Africa in from the 16th century to the era of modern transportation has been problematic. In the study of economics and trade in Africa;  Fernan Broudel noted that

 

 

Timbuktu in today's Mali was an important of the Muslim civilization and its emperor well integrated into the world of North Africa and the Middle East.  In fact in the rainy season it is navigable as far inland as Mali.

So West Africa wasn't hampered by its isolation.  Do you know that the Kingom of the Kongo had an ambassador to the Vatican as early as the 16th century?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...ese_and_Christianity

The reason why the Americas was settled and not West Africa was because indigenous populations were tremendously weakened and so it was easy for Europeans to displace them. The highlands of Bolivia aren't connected to the Pacific Ocean by ocean and yet by the 16th C Potosi was a booming city.

West Africa had strong militaristic populations and Europeans succumbed to tropical diseases.  The Gold Coast and Nigeria ultimately evolved into very valuable British colonies, so its not that they lacked value. Its that the local empires in the 16-early 19th C were able to resist the incursions of the Europeans.

What you describe better fits central and southern regions of Africa which were isolated from the rest of the world.  The Sahel empires of West Africa were fully integrated into the rest of the world. The scholars at Oxford were fully aware of Timbuktu as a center of scholarship.

None of what you said are counter point to what I stated about flourishing trade.  Africa is a big plateau that drops rapidly to the sea. It has no large mountain range to act as a catchment for water. It therefore suffers sporadic dry seasons. 

Indeed there were trade but not in the volume that would initiate large scale investment. It remained that way until the nineteen century. Note the reliance on slave trade terribly weakened the society which at one time suffered tremendously from negative growth rate. That also produced developmental hurdles...lack of man power.

Native Americans held off the white folks for some 200 years. The only reason for the proliferation of whites in new england was because the Narragansett confederation was wiped out in one generation by small pox.

Pontiac also drove Braddock to the sea. He united many of the tribes from Florida to the great lakes to  new england. He signed a treaty to keep then east of the Alleghenies. Of course the white folks broke that the first chance they got. The Indian wars did not end until 19th century with the capture of Geronimo. 

Cities grow at rivers mouth or the rivers edge because of possible inland routes. Cities can grow in outward from the rivers edge but they need waterways to communicate and transport long distances in those times. Otherwise trade remains local.

D2 posted:

 

None of what you said are counter point to what I stated about flourishing trade.  Africa is a big plateau that drops rapidly to the sea. It has no large mountain range to act as a catchment for water. It therefore suffers sporadic dry seasons. 

Indeed there were trade but not in the volume that would initiate large scale investment. It remained that way until the nineteen century. Note the reliance on slave trade terribly weakened the society which at one time suffered tremendously from negative growth rate. That also produced developmental hurdles...lack of man power.

Native Americans held off the white folks for some 200 years. The only reason for the proliferation of whites in new england was because the Narragansett confederation was wiped out in one generation by small pox.

Pontiac also drove Braddock to the sea. He united many of the tribes from Florida to the great lakes to  new england. He signed a treaty to keep then east of the Alleghenies. Of course the white folks broke that the first chance they got. The Indian wars did not end until 19th century with the capture of Geronimo. 

Cities grow at rivers mouth or the rivers edge because of possible inland routes. Cities can grow in outward from the rivers edge but they need waterways to communicate and transport long distances in those times. Otherwise trade remains local.

The Inca and Aztec empires collapsed quickly and within a few decades the Spanish/Portuguese had full domain of the Americas (aside from North America) with the exception of the Amazon basin.    Even in North America there was 16th century population collapse from European diseases.  The Spanish weren't interested at the time, and the others weren't ready to settle these places until into the 17th C.

The Europeans scaled the high mountains of Mexico as well as the Andean range, all elevations considerably higher than anything found in West Africa. Having to use mules to do so, no rivers.  So the terrain of Nigeria, Ghana or the Ivory Coast certainly did not prevent Europeans from moving in. 

It was tropical diseases and the fierce resistance of strong militaries which prevented this. The Europeans determined that trading with powerful empires like those of the Yoruba or the Dahomey was more beneficial than attempting to defeat them.  When the British decided to increase its control over the Gold Coast it fought various wars with the Ashanti empire from the 1820s and it was only by the end of the century that the British were able to assume full control.

The trade in slaves from West and West/Central Africa was one of the most valuable at the time.  Many European institutions, such as Barclay's Bank grew wealthy from funding the slave trade. I already stated that the wealth generated out of Jamaica in the 18th century was worth more than of the 13 British colonies which became the USA.  This wealth was based on the slave trade as there was no other source of labor, the indigenous populations already been wiped out and the Europeans incapable of arduous work in humid tropical environments.

So Africa played a critical role in the development of Europe's wealth and economic dominance.

caribny posted:

D2 posted:

Drugb posted:

I answered, it was a waste of effort, no profit to gain. Africa's primary resource was its slave labor, why would white man go inland when blacks would do it for them and sell their own people for a few beads 

being shallow you cannot even interrogate there deficiencies of your own reasoning to yourself.

Druggie is so silly that he sincerely believes that Africans 
sold their own people for a few beads".  No some people became fantastically wealthy and even now some families with wealth obtained that wealth through slavery.

Cribby you missed the timbuktu joke. Anyway mali/timbuktu is a talking point handed to those desperately looking for afro accomplishment in past. What is missing is that they never built on any of the timbuktu accomplishments and regressed.

Enjoy the below.

Linguistic humor, Timbuktu

The National Poetry Contest had come down to two semifinalists: a Yale graduate and a redneck from Wyoming. They were given a word, then allowed two minutes to study the word and come up with a poem that contained the word. The word they were given was "Timbuktu".

First to recite his poem was the Yale graduate. He stepped to the microphone and said:

Slowly across the desert sand 
Trekked a lonely caravan. 
Men on camels, two by two 
Destination---Timbuktu.

The crowd went crazy! No way could the redneck top that, they thought. The redneck calmly made his way to the microphone and recited:

Me and Tim a-huntin went, 
Met three whores in a pop up tent. 
They was three, and we was two, 
So I bucked one, and Timbuktu. 

The redneck won hands down!

Druggie I forgive you.  You actually use comedians as your source of data. 

Knowledgeable people know that at its peak the Mali empire was among the world's wealthiest due to its gold.  The university at Timbuktu was among the most respected.

https://www.therichest.com/cel...sa-musa-net-worth-2/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...t_historical_figures

Its impossible for a man to be rich if his country is remote.  Scroll down to the Middle Ages.

caribny posted:

Druggie I forgive you.  You actually use comedians as your source of data. 

Knowledgeable people know that at its peak the Mali empire was among the world's wealthiest due to its gold.  The university at Timbuktu was among the most respected.

https://www.therichest.com/cel...sa-musa-net-worth-2/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...t_historical_figures

Its impossible for a man to be rich if his country is remote.  Scroll down to the Middle Ages.

Even more distressing is that his riches were for naught as it did not benefit his people I  the long run! Another example of African demise.

Drugb posted:

caribny posted:

Druggie I forgive you.  You actually use comedians as your source of data. 

Knowledgeable people know that at its peak the Mali empire was among the world's wealthiest due to its gold.  The university at Timbuktu was among the most respected.

https://www.therichest.com/cel...sa-musa-net-worth-2/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...t_historical_figures

Its impossible for a man to be rich if his country is remote.  Scroll down to the Middle Ages.

Even more distressing is that his riches were for naught as it did not benefit his people I  the long run! Another example of African demise.

And did all the riches of the feudal lords benefit you ancestors who were so poor that they got kidnapped to Guyana?  Even in 2018 India is a disaster.  Wife burning, child slavery, caste abuse.

Leave  Africa alone.  Your India has tons of problems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_burning

caribny posted:

Drugb posted:

caribny posted:

Druggie I forgive you.  You actually use comedians as your source of data. 

Knowledgeable people know that at its peak the Mali empire was among the world's wealthiest due to its gold.  The university at Timbuktu was among the most respected.

https://www.therichest.com/cel...sa-musa-net-worth-2/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...t_historical_figures

Its impossible for a man to be rich if his country is remote.  Scroll down to the Middle Ages.

Even more distressing is that his riches were for naught as it did not benefit his people I  the long run! Another example of African demise.

And did all the riches of the feudal lords benefit you ancestors who were so poor that they got kidnapped to Guyana?  Even in 2018 India is a disaster.  Wife burning, child slavery, caste abuse.

Leave  Africa alone.  Your India has tons of problems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_burning

Hope you realise, that's not Drugb's writing style. Someone else is using his handle. 

A boyfren perhaps? hmmmm

Mitwah posted:

caribny posted:

Drugb posted:

caribny posted:

Druggie I forgive you.  You actually use comedians as your source of data. 

Knowledgeable people know that at its peak the Mali empire was among the world's wealthiest due to its gold.  The university at Timbuktu was among the most respected.

https://www.therichest.com/cel...sa-musa-net-worth-2/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...t_historical_figures

Its impossible for a man to be rich if his country is remote.  Scroll down to the Middle Ages.

Even more distressing is that his riches were for naught as it did not benefit his people I  the long run! Another example of African demise.

And did all the riches of the feudal lords benefit you ancestors who were so poor that they got kidnapped to Guyana?  Even in 2018 India is a disaster.  Wife burning, child slavery, caste abuse.

Leave  Africa alone.  Your India has tons of problems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_burning

Hope you realise, that's not Drugb's writing style. Someone else is using his handle. 

Dat man family rent out he handle for $2 a post, the dead tells no tales. 

caribny posted:

Drugb posted:

caribny posted:

Druggie I forgive you.  You actually use comedians as your source of data. 

Knowledgeable people know that at its peak the Mali empire was among the world's wealthiest due to its gold.  The university at Timbuktu was among the most respected.

https://www.therichest.com/cel...sa-musa-net-worth-2/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...t_historical_figures

Its impossible for a man to be rich if his country is remote.  Scroll down to the Middle Ages.

Even more distressing is that his riches were for naught as it did not benefit his people I  the long run! Another example of African demise.

And did all the riches of the feudal lords benefit you ancestors who were so poor that they got kidnapped to Guyana?  Even in 2018 India is a disaster.  Wife burning, child slavery, caste abuse.

Leave  Africa alone.  Your India has tons of problems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_burning

Again, incorrect analysis, the indos brought to guyana were the poorest of the poor. Even here in america we have have bottom scrapers who barely survive, you should know these types. The indentured servants were desperate and signed on with the british for what they considered a chance at economic redemption. But compare India today and understand what the differences are, a nuclear power Indian, a shithole continent, Africa according to DT.   

Drugb, I thought you said you died.