Multiculturalism has betrayed the English - Ugandan-born Archbishop

[ED209]

Multiculturalism has betrayed the English, Archbishop says

By Ruth Gledhill
THE LONDON TIMES
Novemeber 22, 2005

St George's Day should be celebrated and the English should reclaim their national identity and culture, Dr John Sentamu says, a week before his enthronement in York.

The Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, said that too many people were embarrassed about being English. "Multiculturalism has seemed to imply, wrongly for me, let other cultures be allowed to express themselves but do not let the majority culture at all tell us its glories, its struggles, its joys, its pains," he said.

He said that the failure of England to rediscover its culture afresh would lead only to greater political extremism.

The new Archbishop also strongly criticised the Terrorism Bill, showing that he is likely to be even more robust in his criticism of the Government than the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams.

Dr Sentamu has consistently denied speculation that his was a political appointment and, as a former judge in Uganda, his attack on counter-terrorism legislation carries particular weight. "The moment you make your laws so tough, even the most law abiding will say, this is a chance to break them," Dr Sentamu said.

He called for the English to rediscover their cultural identity by properly marking celebrations such as St George's Day on April 23. "I speak as a foreigner really. The English are somehow embarrassed about some of the good things they have done. They have done some terrible things but not all the Empire was a bad idea. Because the Empire has gone there is almost the sense in which there is not a big idea that drives this nation."

The Ugandan-born Archbishop, who fled Idi Amin's regime in 1974, said he would not be where he was today were it not for the British Empire and the English teachers and missionaries who worked in Africa.

Dr Sentamu was speaking to The Times before his enthronement as the Church's new No 2 at York Minster on November 30. As the most senior black churchman, who during his time as a bishop in London acted as an adviser to the Stephen Lawrence inquiry that found institutional racism in the police, he received racist and abusive letters, some covered in human excrement, after his appointment was announced earlier this year.

But as a direct product himself of the British Empire, he intends to make mission and a passion for English culture, and the Christian roots of that culture, driving forces of the next decade or more that he will spend as primate of England's northern province.

"What is it to be English? It is a very serious question," he said. "I think we have not engaged with English culture as it has developed. When you ask a lot of people in this country, 'What is English culture?', they are very vague. It is a culture that whether we like it or not has given us parliamentary democracy. It is the mother of it. It is the mother of arguing that if you want a change of government, you vote them in or you vote them out.

"It is a place that has allowed reason to be at the heart of all these things, that has allowed genuine dissent without resort to violence, that has allowed all the fantastic music that we experience in our culture."

Multiculturalism as a concept failed to convey the essence of what it meant to be English. "England is the culture I have lived in, I have loved . . . My teachers were English. As a boy growing up, that is the culture I knew."

He disliked the word "tolerance" when used in reference, for example, to people of different cultures. "It seems to be the word tolerance is bad because it just means putting up with it," he said. "I was raised in the spirit of magnanimity. That is a better word than tolerance. If you are magnanimous in your judgments on other people, there is a chance that I will recognise that you will help me in my struggle."

He described English culture as rooted in Christianity and, in spite of attempts by secularists to marginalise it, the Church still had a central role to play. "I think the Church in many ways has to be like a midwife, bringing to birth possibilities of what is authentically very good in the English mind."

He will work closely with Dr Williams, and disclosed the precise nature of that relationship.

"We come from a similar stable," he said. "He is my Moses. I have chosen in that analogy to try and be a Jethro to him. Jethro was Moses's father-in-law who was always very practical, making suggestions. In the end it was Moses who had to put them out [into practice].

"People say to me, 'are you going to play second fiddle to the Archbishop of Canterbury?' That is not helpful. This is going to be a partnership."

Referring to Dr Williams's "incredible gifts of intellect" and deep spiritual life, he described him as "a person of prayer and a person who listens to God, a person who wants to be magnanimous about everybody, which some people don't like. He is a Welshman, I know, but still his behaviour is the kind of tradition I was raised in."

A spokesman for the Archbishop of Canterbury welcomed Dr Sentamu's comments. He said: "I'm only embarrassed about being English when we lose a cricket match in the way we've just lost one."

OUT OF AFRICA

# Born in 1947 into Uganda's Buffalo Clan as John Mugabi Tucker Sentamu, one of 13 children

# Encouraged in education by English missionaries and teachers, he graduated in law from Makerere University, Kampala, in 1971 and practised law at the bar and the bench in the High Court of Uganda

# Read theology at Selwyn College, Cambridge, gaining a master's and a doctorate, and trained for ordination at Ridley Hall, Cambridge

# After ordination in 1979 he served as assistant chaplain at Selwyn College and then as chaplain at Lachmere House remand centre. He also served as curate of St Andrew's, Ham, in the Southwark diocese

# In 1982 he became curate of St Paul, Herne Hill, and a year later, priest at the two churches of Holy Trinity and St Matthias, Tulse Hill, where he stayed until 1996

# Word of his lively sermons, music and congregations dancing into the aisles spread through the capital and beyond. His was one of the first parishes to buck the trend of decline

# In 1996 he was plucked out of parish life and sent to Stepney as an area bishop

# In 2002 he became Bishop of Birmingham; in 2005, Archbishop of York

# He has also served as adviser to the Stephen Lawrence judicial inquiry in 1997-99 and chaired the Damilola Taylor review in 2002

END

THE LONDON TIMES:|

[Belrick]

Too late, your fuked. The English are on there way out. The english culture no longer has a home of its own.

[rocket13]

Why would the english be embarrased of their history?

[ED209]

I find it funny (in a bitter sort of way) that it has to be a black man who tells westerners to be proud of themselves. You must admit that if a white man had said EXACTLY the same thing he would immediately be suspected of racism and igonred.:cantbeli:

[Laworkerbee]

I find it funny (in a bitter sort of way) that it has to be a black man who tells westerners to be proud of themselves. You must admit that if a white man had said EXACTLY the same thing he would immediately be suspected of racism and igonred.:cantbeli:

LOL good point!

[ED209]

Why would the english be embarrased of their history?

That's exactly the point: they HAVE NO REASON to be embarrased of their history, quite the contrary they have every reason to be proud, but given the current social climat and the constant message by mass medias, westerners have become meek and embarrased of being white!

[Playtime]

Strange of him to seem to credit the english and missionaries for all he has.
Surely if those people hadnt destroyed the african continent in the past, africa could well be a power house to rival china, india etc

[Belrick]

What proof do you have of that? African culture has yet to reach the point where they can run a country without other cultures aid. Its simply a matter of maturity, European, asian and Indian cultures have hundreds or thousands of years of creating and running advanced civilizations.

Africa a scant few generations ago were still living in the stone ages. Dont blame it all on other cultures is my point, IMHO Africa as a whole has gained as much as they lost.

[AceoFBase]

Strange of him to seem to credit the english and missionaries for all he has.
Surely if those people hadnt destroyed the african continent in the past, africa could well be a power house to rival china, india etc
They didn't destroy the African continent.
The British didn't even have significant colonies in Africa until the late 1800's and early 1900's. Africa was not advanced at that time so I doubt they would have rivaled China and India if they had been given another 100 years. Perhaps the blame for Africa's failures can be placed on the Islamic imperialists who colonized Africa before the British, French, Germans, etc..

A lot of Britain's colonies outside of Africa did become very successful.
Just look at the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, the Cayman Islands, the Bahamas, Bermuda, etc..

Even South Africa, the one part of Africa they were most involved in, became very successful.

[SerbPVO]

Strange of him to seem to credit the english and missionaries for all he has.
Surely if those people hadnt destroyed the african continent in the past, africa could well be a power house to rival china, india etc


Name me one country that is led by black leaders that can be a rival to anything please. Practically ALL are failed states.

[hughdotoh]

"What is it to be English? It is a very serious question," he said. "I think we have not engaged with English culture as it has developed. When you ask a lot of people in this country, 'What is English culture?', they are very vague. It is a culture that whether we like it or not has given us parliamentary democracy. It is the mother of it. It is the mother of arguing that if you want a change of government, you vote them in or you vote them out.

"It is a place that has allowed reason to be at the heart of all these things, that has allowed genuine dissent without resort to violence, that has allowed all the fantastic music that we experience in our culture."

How truly sad. These days, asserting British culture in general and English culture in particular, and all their achievements, has become almost a crime anywhere.


"It seems to be the word tolerance is bad because it just means putting up with it," he said. "I was raised in the spirit of magnanimity. That is a better word than tolerance. If you are magnanimous in your judgments on other people, there is a chance that I will recognise that you will help me in my struggle."

Good point, especially to those turd-brain Greens, Reds, Liberals, and socialists who claim that immigrants' tribal customs should be honored even if they are against the law.

[ED209]

Strange of him to seem to credit the english and missionaries for all he has.
Surely if those people hadnt destroyed the african continent in the past, africa could well be a power house to rival china, india etc

:roll: Did you ever stop to wonder WHY a handful of white men were capable of conquering all of sub-saharan Africa in a few genreations back in the 18th century?
I will tell you why: because Africans were so unadvanced in every aspect of life (communications, governement, transportation, military, etc...) that they were incapable of stopping it.
As another poster mentionned, there are plenty of coutnries in Asia that were colonized by the "evil white man" and yet managed to succeed brilliantly. Not to mention Japan that IS an economic power house and yet was devastated by war.
God forbid I should point this out, but what have the Africans EVER acheived in history (even before white people came in the 18th century)? The answer is NOTHING of course.:|
And the BEST thing of all is that I read somewhere that an African leader said that if it wasn't for colonialism then the black man would have been the first to go in sapce and land on the moon!!!!:cantbeli:

[Jeremiah]

what an racist thread.

[ED209]

what an racist thread.

It's sad to say that we cannot face reality without haveing to spout catch phrases as a show stopper.:-(

Anyways to get back on the subject I still think that the Bishop (who is black by the way) is right in saying that multiculturalism has done nothing good for english culture...and this is true for all western societies.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Multiculturalism isn't all bad.
At least you can get a decent curry in the UK nowadays

[cut]

ed209, reading your posts you're probably not English, why the interest?

[LaoSexMachine]

It's sad to say that we cannot face reality without haveing to spout catch phrases as a show stopper.:-(

Anyways to get back on the subject I still think that the Bishop (who is black by the way) is right in saying that multiculturalism has done nothing good for english culture...and this is true for all western societies.


western culture would not be what it is now with out mingling with other culture and vise versa.

[Belrick]

Yeah what a great place England became for its inhabitants during the viking cultural spread. I bet the celts/Romans/saxons were glad they didnt have a force to keep there borders secure.

Since Pakistan/indonesia/Turkey etc cutures have created great nations that are wonderful places to live in, you can be sure that those that emmigrate from there spreading these cultures will improve the land they choose to settle in.

Personnally im looking forward to Islamics becomming the majority within NZ just so that my daughter can be forced to wear a Burkha.

[ED209]

Personnally im looking forward to Islamics becomming the majority within NZ just so that my daughter can be forced to wear a Burkha.

Hell yah! rofl and afterward when I really think about it:cantbeli: and then:| and :-( and finally:-*$

[Belrick]

what an racist thread.

Theres always some nob/tard/thicko who cannot tell race apart from culture.

Lesson 101:

Culture: = Official and unofficial laws by how we live.
Race: = Minor gene variation among groups of humans.

To put you in your place, you can pray 5 times a day, pratice jihad, beat your wife like a small child while believing them to be the actions God would have you perfom regardless of wether your Asian, European, Indian, African or West Aucklander.

Comphrend?

[ronin2172]

What proof do you have of that? African culture has yet to reach the point where they can run a country without other cultures aid. Its simply a matter of maturity, European, asian and Indian cultures have hundreds or thousands of years of creating and running advanced civilizations.

Africa a scant few generations ago were still living in the stone ages. Dont blame it all on other cultures is my point, IMHO Africa as a whole has gained as much as they lost.
Oh really?

I think you need to crack open a history book on Africa.....you have a lot to learn....for example...

6000-4000 The River People emerge along Nile, Niger, and Congo Rivers (West-Central Africa); the Isonghee of Zaire (Republic of Congo) introduce mathematical abacus; and Cyclopian stone tombs built in Central African Republic area. Spread of agriculture south of the Sahara Desert supporting a growing population, which mastered animal domestication and agriculture, and forced the San groups into the less hospitable areas.


or this tidbit....



750 – 600 Kush or Nubia (upper or southern reaches of Nile River) rules Egypt from capital Meroe; with metal technology, widened economic influence in sub-Saharan Africa


or this one...


c. 300 "Rulers of Nubia established their capital at Meroë around 300 B.C., and the kingdom lasted there for more than nine centuries." (that quote was from a documentary on PBS)

740 Islamicized Africans (Moors) invade Spain, and rule it unti1 1492. The Moors brought agriculture, engineering, mining, industry, manufacturing, architecture, and scholarship, developing Spain into the center for culture and learning throughout Europe for almost 800 years until the fall of Granada in 1492

800
(to 1100) [Glossary]: Growth of trans-Sahara gold trade across the sahel ("sahel" is Arabic for "shore" or "coast") at southern boundary of the Sahara Desert, which was likened to a sea. The desert was not an impossible barrier; many trade routes cross it from early times. The sahel was the intensive point of contact and trade between sub-Saharan Africa (Africa south of the Sahara Desert), and North Africa and the world beyond, along with contact and trade along Atlantic and Indian Ocean seacoasts. In western Africa a number of black kingdoms emerge whose economic base lay in their control of trans-Saharan trade routes. Gold, kola nuts, and slaves were sent north in exchange for cloth, utensils, and salt. This trade enabled the rise of the great empires—Ghana, Mali, and Songhai--of the savanna ("savanna" refers to a treeless or sparsely forested plain.)


ca 1000 Ghana Empire of Soninke peoples (in what is now SE Mauritania) at height of power. The earliest of the 3 great West African states (emerging ca. 300 CE), Ghana equipped its armies with iron weapons and became master of the trade in salt and gold, controlling routes extending from present-day Morocco in the north, Lake Chad and Nubia/Egypt in the eat, and the coastal forests of western Africa in the south. By the early 11th century, Muslim advisers were at the court of Ghana.

13th c. Rise of the Mali Empire of the Mande (or Mandinka) peoples in West Africa.. The Mali Empire was strategically located near gold mines and the agriculturally rich interior floodplain of the Niger River. This region had been under the domination of the Ghana Empire until the middle of the 11th century. As Ghana declined, several short-lived kingdoms vied for influence over the western Sudan region.

1324 -1325 Mali Emperor Mansa Musa's sensational pilgrimage to Mecca, spreads Mali’s fame across Sudan to Egypt, the Islamic and European worlds. ["Mansa" means "emperor."] He brought with him hundreds of camels laden with gold. Under Mansa Musa, diplomatic relations with Tunis and Egypt were opened, and Muslim scholars and artisans brought into to the empire; and Mali appeared on the maps of Europe. .Islam penetrated Mali’s elaborate court life and thrived in commercial sahel centers such as Jenne and Tombouctou or Timbuktu, on the great bend of the Niger River. Mali's legacy is the enduring cultural affiliation shared by the Mande peoples (especially Malinke, Bambara, and Soninke speakers) who today occupy large parts of West Africa.
(not bad for people who were living in the stone age until a few generations ago,huh?)
I could go on and on...but the point is get your facts straight before shooting your mouth off....

[artistoli]

I'm young, British, white, and proud of it (before anyone who is black starts calling me racist; think. You guys say you are proud of being black all the time!).

I am 100% for re-embarking on empire building. I think that the world, especially Africa, would be far better off under a colonial system. Sure, the colonial system of the past was flawed, but we have learnt from it. The European powers have given Africa 50 years to prove itself; and Africa has failed completely. Its about time we actually grew a backbone in the west and said:
'We have proven that we can build stable, prosperous, pleasant nations; but Africa is still stewing in anarchy and dispair, and we need to go and sort them out." The west is subsidising and feeding most African nations anyway, so why not govern them too? No one can tell me, in good faith, that they think that the living standards of the vast majority of ordinary Africans would fall! Come on, we could actually help people. The only ones who would loose out would be:
1) The corrupt, murderous African military leaders and politicians.
2) Greedy, corrupt western companies who already exploit Africa; as they would actually have to be accountable for their actions under good government.
3)The whinging, idle, pathetic, left wing politically correct idealists of the European and North American middle and upper classes who would have nothing left to whinge about.

The ones who would benefit would be:
1)The starving millions.
2)The millions who live in fear of rampant crime and disorder.
3)The millions of African entrepreneurs who would be able to exploit the stability.
4)The health and education systems of African nations.
5)The political prisoners.
6)Virtually everybody else in Africa.

[ronin2172]

I'm young, British, white, and proud of it (before anyone who is black starts calling me racist; think. You guys say you are proud of being black all the time!).

I am 100% for re-embarking on empire building. I think that the world, especially Africa, would be far better off under a colonial system. Sure, the colonial system of the past was flawed, but we have learnt from it. The European powers have given Africa 50 years to prove itself; and Africa has failed completely. Its about time we actually grew a backbone in the west and said:
'We have proven that we can build stable, prosperous, pleasant nations; but Africa is still stewing in anarchy and dispair, and we need to go and sort them out." The west is subsidising and feeding most African nations anyway, so why not govern them too? No one can tell me, in good faith, that they think that the living standards of the vast majority of ordinary Africans would fall! Come on, we could actually help people. The only ones who would loose out would be:
1) The corrupt, murderous African military leaders and politicians.
2) Greedy, corrupt western companies who already exploit Africa; as they would actually have to be accountable for their actions under good government.
3)The whinging, idle, pathetic, left wing politically correct idealists of the European and North American middle and upper classes who would have nothing left to whinge about.

The ones who would benefit would be:
1)The starving millions.
2)The millions who live in fear of rampant crime and disorder.
3)The millions of African entrepreneurs who would be able to exploit the stability.
4)The health and education systems of African nations.
5)The political prisoners.
6)Virtually everybody else in Africa.

So braniac praytell how all of this ill be paid for?

And what makes you think africans are going to welcome you back with open arms.....

i think you need to look up the history of your glorious period of colonialism...it wasn't as peachy as you think....you need to read up on what good ol King leopold of Belgium was up to when he had the congo as his personal property....oh yea they were glorious days indeed for Africa*rolling eyes*....In fact before before Europeans decided they needed to free Africa by colonising here she was doing alright on her own

[AceoFBase]

i think you need to look up the history of your glorious period of colonialism...it wasn't as peachy as you think....you need to read up on what good ol King leopold of Belgium was up to when he had the congo as his personal property....oh yea they were glorious days indeed for Africa*rolling eyes*....In fact before before Europeans decided they needed to free Africa by colonising here she was doing alright on her own

If you look up the history of British colonialism in Africa it was not as barbaric as you think. The British ended slavery in the areas that they took over, which had been practiced for hundreds of years before European colonization of the Americas and their brief participation in the slave trade. They also did try to invest in Africa and build it up.

Things were not that peachy when the Europeans arrived. They were still engaging in cannibalism in many parts of sub-Saharan Africa. It wasn't a grand glorious place that was ruined by the Europeans.

[rajkhalsa]

The major reason Africa does not have many successful nations is not at all racial/cultural, but solely for reasons historical and political.

In Europe, Asia, and America, the Westphalian idea of a nation-state had taken hold, and national identity is not generally on linguistic, ethnic, tribal or religious forms, but instead is nationalism to the nation and its laws.

Before the idea of the nation state happened, countries borders were fluid, and regionalism and tribalism was the norm. Though empires could be vast, at the ground level, the peasant sill served his master who served his lord, who served his king, who eventually served his emperor -- and any such similar permutations.

When the idea of nationalism came into being, people didn't consider themselves beholden to their direct masters, but to the overarching ideal of national identity. It is a natural course of political system development.


However, becuase there was so much foreign interference in African national political development, the political system there has been forcefully (and really, deliberately) retarded or sabotauged.

Africa is an incredibly diverse continent, and ethnic and tribal loyaltys remain strong, not national. When Europe artifically carved up the continent, they drew borders that do not follow ethnic or linguistic groups, but were totally unnatural. While this is cause for strive enough, corruption, poverty and truth be told, colonial wounds stemming from Europe's divide and conquer tradition, has excarabated the situation, has served as a huge roadblock for developing a sense of national identity. When you got competing economic, language, political systems, and foreign countries playing power games on top of all this, you have a recepie for disaster.


However, there are many countries in Africa, South Africa, Nigeria, Egypt, etc., where nationalism has taken hold, and has caused stability. This in turn caused economic development, and these countries are growing in economic power and influence.

As they grow more powerful, and as they have the power to get more involved in African affairs, I expect them to have a positive impact on their neighbors.

Education and poverty are the cures to all social problems. If these goals can be reached, Africa will have thrown off the ghosts of colonialism and will shine again

[AceoFBase]

When Europe artifically carved up the continent, they drew borders that do not follow ethnic or linguistic groups, but were totally unnatural.

Did the Europeans carve up the continent and draw the borders or did these regions already exist under other rulers, like the Arabs?

Look at the case with Sudan.
That was ruled by Egypt and the British took control of it after they defeated Egypt in a war. They didn't just create a country out of empty land, it already existed.

Here's some background on the British colonial posessions in Africa:
http://freespace.virgin.net/andrew.randall1/africa.htm

[Lazy Lob]

The major reason Africa does not have many successful nations is not at all racial/cultural, but solely for reasons historical and political.

I totally disagree. One of the main reasons, if not the number one, is cultural. Corruption is endemic in Africa and this has nothing to do with borders. Europe and America cannot be blamed for all the world’s ills however fashionable it is to do so. Some of these problems are home grown and this is one of them.

The problem isn’t so much the corrupt African politicians but that their societies tolerate and sometimes admire them. Borders has nothing to do with this. Chalk and cheese.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

One thing is for sure - a few thousand Europeans (and Arabs as well) couldn't have taken millions of Africans into slavery without the active assistance of a very large number of Africans. And they are still suffering from the effects of that kind of corruption today.

[ronin2172]

One thing is for sure - a few thousand Europeans (and Arabs as well) couldn't have taken millions of Africans into slavery without the active assistance of a very large number of Africans. And they are still suffering from the effects of that kind of corruption today.
It wasn't really about corruption, taking slaves was a standard practice of the day in Africa. Many kingdoms and societies kept slaves, the Asanti, Dahomey, amongst others. Most slaves were used for domestic purposes and were not used for commercial gain until they came into contact with europeans (and arabs) who had a large need for slaves. But they did not enslave their own people, they enslaved the people belonging to rival nations (usually after victory on the battlefield), for major profit....and I quote:

"The slave trade is the ruling principle of my people. It is the source and the glory of their wealth…the mother lulls the child to sleep with notes of triumph over an enemy reduced to slavery…"

King Gezo, Dahomey (modern day Benin)

And business was good, in 1750 King Tegbesu made 250,000 pounds off of the slave trade. The Asanti's major business was trading in gold until the selling of slaves to Europeans became too lucrative.

....................................................................................................

"If you look up the history of British colonialism in Africa it was not as barbaric as you think. The British ended slavery in the areas that they took over, which had been practiced for hundreds of years before European colonization of the Americas and their brief participation in the slave trade. They also did try to invest in Africa and build it up."

I see you like to look at it through rose colored glasses. European participation may have been 'brief' (and considering that european participation in the slave trade began in the 1400's and ended in the 1800's you may need to redefine your meaning of brief)but they sure made up for lost time..

Oh yea they did invest in Africa, but for the benefit of whom? Not the local populace

The british ended slavery when it suited them, not because they were so concerned with the welfare of black slaves.

The Asanti maintained the practice of slavery up to 1895. now up to the arrival of Europeans it was mainly for domestic purposes, then selling slaves became so profitible it displaced the gold trade as their number one money making enterprise. Yet the British did nothing about it, in fact they went out of their way to maintain the status quo....and I quote:

"It would be a mistake to frighten the King of Kumasi and the Ashantis generally on the question of slavery. We cannot sweep away their customs and institutions all at once. Domestic slavery should not be troubled at present."

This all changed when the Ashanti resisted British Colonial authority, then all of the sudden the british remembered how bad slavery was and used that to justify an extension of their power. After the king was exiled in 1896 and the place was colonised the slave trade there was abolished.

So please spare me tales of how magnanimous the british were, they did things when and only when it was in their interests, not out of concern for the plight of Africans....

[AceoFBase]

So please spare me tales of how magnanimous the british were, they did things when and only when it was in their interests, not out of concern for the plight of Africans....
The British had already abolished slavery almost a hundred years before the takeover of Ghana. If you had posted the source of your quote we could all see that the Afircans themselves were disapointed at the end of slavery in that region.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/9chapter2.shtml

In 1807, Britain declared all slave trading illegal. The king of Bonny (in what is now the Nigerian delta) was dismayed at the conclusion of the practice.

"We think this trade must go on. That is the verdict of our oracle and the priests. They say that your country, however great, can never stop a trade ordained by God himself."

The reson for them not pushing the issue in Ghana prior to their colonization may have had to do with trying to maintain good relations and push change slowly without having to take it over. The British, who are now in Iraq, can not just ban the wearing of headscarves and burqas without the Iraqis rising up and kicking them out. That doesn't mean that they support it.
It was probably a similar thing in Africa.

You can say that I'm looking at it with rose colored glasses but you are looking at it with **** colored glasses.

I've heard for years about how terrible the colonization was but I don't think it was entirely bad.

All of the things the the British and Europeans are being blamed for were already going on at the time and were being run by the muslims who colonized those regions before the Europeans colonized them.

[ED209]

ed209, reading your posts you're probably not English, why the interest?

I'm not english...but the comments made by that black bishop do not ONLY relate to England, indeed they relate to the ENTIRE western world, of which I am part. So why did I put this article...simple, because in my country there are no black archbishops that speak sense like this one and if I had simply stated, word for word what he had said then I would have been called a racist and banned! That's the answer to your question.


what an racist thread.

This I read somewhere : when Indians have identity it is called culture, when blacks have identity it is called pride but when white people have identity it is called racism.

[cut]

This I read somewhere : when Indians have identity it is called culture, when blacks have identity it is called pride but when white people have identity it is called racism

If white people didn't have power in ethnicaly mixed countries this wouldn't happen.

[ED209]

If white people didn't have power in ethnicaly mixed countries this wouldn't happen.

What's the matter CUT, you feeling white guilt at being in power in your own country? You feel too inept and inferior to be in power and to rule? It makes you uncomfortable and it makes you feel like an "evil white man"?

[superbuzzmetal]

:roll: Did you ever stop to wonder WHY a handful of white men were capable of conquering all of sub-saharan Africa in a few genreations back in the 18th century?
I will tell you why: because Africans were so unadvanced in every aspect of life (communications, governement, transportation, military, etc...) that they were incapable of stopping it.
As another poster mentionned, there are plenty of coutnries in Asia that were colonized by the "evil white man" and yet managed to succeed brilliantly. Not to mention Japan that IS an economic power house and yet was devastated by war.
God forbid I should point this out, but what have the Africans EVER acheived in history (even before white people came in the 18th century)? The answer is NOTHING of course.:|
And the BEST thing of all is that I read somewhere that an African leader said that if it wasn't for colonialism then the black man would have been the first to go in sapce and land on the moon!!!!:cantbeli:


I have to agree with you, from my point of view a vast majority of the african population is too divided by tribal issues and different etnicities, that's one of the reasons it was so easy for the white man to colonize Africa.Because of those issues and ofcourse the politic instability after the descolonization, alot of African countries got into civil\ethnic wars. Another matter that is hard for me to understand is slavery, it was practiced long before the white man reached Africa coast, yet there's this idea that it was the white man that started slavery in Africa.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

I have to agree with you, from my point of view a vast majority of the african population is too divided by tribal issues and different etnicities, that's one of the reasons it was so easy for the white man to colonize Africa.Because of those issues and ofcourse the politic instability after the descolonization, alot of African countries got into civil\ethnic wars. Another matter that is hard for me to understand is slavery, it was practiced long before the white man reached Africa coast, yet there's this idea that it was the white man that started slavery in Africa.

In fact North African slavers (Barbary pirates) were taking slaves from Europe (estimated at 1.25 million between 1530 and 1780) long before Europeans got into the African slave trade.
http://tinyurl.com/75p7u

[AceoFBase]

In fact North African slavers (Barbary pirates) were taking slaves from Europe (estimated at 1.25 million between 1530 and 1780) long before Europeans got into the African slave trade.
http://tinyurl.com/75p7u
Here's another link on that:

The Role of Islam in African Slavery (http://africanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa040201a.htm)

Of course this is ignored by many people because it doesn't put all the blame for everything bad in the world on the shoulders of Europeans and Americans.

[Johnny_H02]

well to all from the UK !

When Johnny H from Canada gets to the UK on a Working Holiday, there will be a GIANT Union Jack hanging from my window or where anyone else can see it.

**** being PC, im really proud of my British ancestory and my Canadian heritage so I could care less who objects to my display.

[Lazy Lob]

well to all from the UK !

When Johnny H from Canada gets to the UK on a Working Holiday, there will be a GIANT Union Jack hanging from my window or where anyone else can see it.

**** being PC, im really proud of my British ancestory and my Canadian heritage so I could care less who objects to my display.

Good for you mate, nice to hear.

[ronin2172]

The British had already abolished slavery almost a hundred years before the takeover of Ghana. If you had posted the source of your quote we could all see that the Afircans themselves were disapointed at the end of slavery in that region.



The reson for them not pushing the issue in Ghana prior to their colonization may have had to do with trying to maintain good relations and push change slowly without having to take it over. The British, who are now in Iraq, can not just ban the wearing of headscarves and burqas without the Iraqis rising up and kicking them out. That doesn't mean that they support it.
It was probably a similar thing in Africa.

You can say that I'm looking at it with rose colored glasses but you are looking at it with **** colored glasses.

I've heard for years about how terrible the colonization was but I don't think it was entirely bad.

All of the things the the British and Europeans are being blamed for were already going on at the time and were being run by the muslims who colonized those regions before the Europeans colonized them.

No I am not looking though S*** colored galsses i am simply being a realist.

your rationalization for the British to ignore the slave industry of the Ashanti proves my point....they acted upon it when it suited them. In fact it can be argued that the british abolished slavery for economic reasons. Oh yea Parliment didn't pass the Slavey Aboliton Act till 1833 (the Slave trade Act of 1807 was ineffective to say the least) the british attacked the Ashanti several times in the 19th century..1801, 1824, and they finally triumphed in 1874...so that is hardly almost a century after they abolished slavery.....

to compare iraq in the 21st century to the Ashanti in the 19th century is silly..the british are not trying to colonise Iraq. Push change slowly when off and on the british tried to colonise the Ashanti by force for the good part of a century?

the source of my quotes was the BBC...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/9chapter2.shtml

hmmm africans were disapointed with the slave trade....(besides the slaves themselves of course)....

"We think this trade must go on. That is the verdict of our oracle and the priests. They say that your country, however great, can never stop a trade ordained by God himself."

-King of Bonny's (now a part of modern Nigeria) reaction towards the abolishment of the slave trade by the british.

You dont think it was entirely bad....wow...I bet you think Nativa Americans were living the life when they first were sent to reservations

Lets see natives were deprived of their culture (take a visit to the british museum to see some of the artifacts they 'acquired') , had no say in the control of their land, worked their asses off for their colonial masters for what? Where did the profits go, please don't tell me it went to the native population.

Did I say Europeans were entirely to blame...no but to absolve them of ANY blame is entirely stupid, they did more than their fair share of dirt, it doesn't matter who did it first.

Interesting on how you try to shift blame on the Muslims....

[ronin2172]

It is so clear to see you have not one clue as to what you are talking about...
:roll: Did you ever stop to wonder WHY a handful of white men were capable of conquering all of sub-saharan Africa in a few genreations back in the 18th century?
I will tell you why: because Africans were so unadvanced in every aspect of life (communications, governement, transportation, military, etc...) that they were incapable of stopping it.
As another poster mentionned, there are plenty of coutnries in Asia that were colonized by the "evil white man" and yet managed to succeed brilliantly. Not to mention Japan that IS an economic power house and yet was devastated by war.
God forbid I should point this out, but what have the Africans EVER acheived in history (even before white people came in the 18th century)? The answer is NOTHING of course.:|
And the BEST thing of all is that I read somewhere that an African leader said that if it wasn't for colonialism then the black man would have been the first to go in sapce and land on the moon!!!!:cantbeli:
Instead of spending so much time on the net looking at **** or playing games ...pick up a book or two about a subject BEFORE you spout off at the mouth....

Africans achieved a great deal, they built libraries, cities, empires, studied mathematics amongst other things centuries BEFORE europeans came to Africa. Look up the history of Timbuktu for example....

"Its geographical setting made it a natural meeting point for nearby African populations and nomadic Berber and Arab peoples from the north. Its long history as a trading outpost that linked west Africa with Berber and Islamic traders throughout north Africa, and thereby indirectly with traders from Europe, has given it a fabled status, and in the West it was for long a metaphor for exotic, distant lands: "from here to Timbuktoo". Timbuktu's most long-lasting contribution to Islamic and world civilization is scholarship. By at least the fourteenth century, important books were written and copied in Timbuktu, establishing the city as the center of a significant written tradition in Africa.

The Library of Timbuktu
The collection of ancient manuscripts at the University of Sankore and other sites around Timbuktu document the magnificence of the institution, as well as the city itself, while enabling scholars to reconstruct the past in fairly intimate detail. Dating from the 16th to the 18th centuries, the ancient manuscripts cover every aspect of human endeavor and are indicative of the high level of civilization attained by West Africans during the Middle Ages. In testament to the glory of Timbuktu, for example, a West African Islamic proverb states that "Salt comes from the north, gold from the south, but the word of God and the treasures of wisdom come from Timbuktu."

Among the libraries which have been preserving these manuscripts are: Institut des Hautes Etudes et de Recherche Islamique - Ahmed Baba, Timbuktu; Mamma Haidara Library; Fondo Kati Library; Al-Wangari Library; and Mohamed Tahar Library. These libraries are considered part of the "African Ink Road" that stretched from West Africa connecting North Africa and East Africa. At one time there were 120 libraries with manuscripts in Timbuktu and surrounding areas. There are more than one million objects preserved in Mali with an additional 20 million in other parts of Africa, the largest concentration of which is in Sokoto, Nigeria, although the full extent of the manuscripts is unknown. During the colonial era efforts were made to conceal the documents after a number of entire libraries were taken to Paris, London and other parts of Europe. Some manuscripts were buried underground, while others were hidden in the desert or in caves. Many are still hidden today. The United States Library of Congress microfilmed a sampling of the manuscripts during an exhibit there in June of 2003"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbuktu

Oh and in response to your japanese point....what african country recieved the extra TLC that Japan (and Germany) recieved post WW2 which led to their rise to economic superpowers? The answer...not a one. if the US had not spent so much money on Japan...the japanese would not be in the same position they are now.

it's hard to build a strong country that is composed of differnt groups who don't like each other (look at the former yugoslavia, and the former USSR and the problems they are having now). japan is a country where everyone speaks the same language worship the same gods, it also helps that japan had been a country for how many hundreds of years before WW2; so they have a sense of national identity, cohesiveness and pride, that none of the new countries of africa.

The moral of this story boys and girls is...think before you post...