|
Lead out in cuffs posted:And yes it is racist as gently caress, and has a long history of being racist as gently caress, and the racists who told you that it isn't are morons on top of their racism. Isn't a moron and is by far not the worst thing. One farmer told me not to go along the wild coast as the people there are barely out of their caves. That seems worse. It's not a word he uses now. I was asking him why Afrikaans speakers seem to think that using the word baboon is acceptable when describing Zuma and he explained the translation and that at least now it is used irrespective of race. I made the point that while that might be the case it probably came about to describe blacks and he claimed that as a kid in KZN 50-60 years ago that he'd use it to describe his white friends. He said that it wasn't until a couple of years ago that he had that understanding of it being racist. Calling people morons and racists however is a wonderful way to shut down discussion and them telling me stories.
|
# ? Sep 20, 2017 10:43 |
|
|
# ? May 27, 2024 03:29 |
|
Sad Panda posted:Isn't a moron and is by far not the worst thing. One farmer told me not to go along the wild coast as the people there are barely out of their caves. That seems worse. It's probably just because a lot of Afrikaans speakers are racist.
|
# ? Sep 20, 2017 12:23 |
|
Sad Panda posted:Isn't a moron and is by far not the worst thing. One farmer told me not to go along the wild coast as the people there are barely out of their caves. That seems worse.
|
# ? Sep 20, 2017 12:26 |
|
The idea that baboon only picked up racial connotations recently is trash, there was a famous incident in 1970 when Ian Smith and his supporters responded to black hecklers at a rally at a university in 1970 with an impromptu rendition of Bobbejaan Klim die Berg (Baboon Climbs the Mountain) and Smith defended himself by trying to say it was just a children's song about a naughty baboon I swear
|
# ? Sep 20, 2017 13:13 |
|
kustomkarkommando posted:The idea that baboon only picked up racial connotations recently is trash, there was a famous incident in 1970 when Ian Smith and his supporters responded to black hecklers at a rally at a university in 1970 with an impromptu rendition of Bobbejaan Klim die Berg (Baboon Climbs the Mountain) and Smith defended himself by trying to say it was just a children's song about a naughty baboon I swear Calling Ian Smith a racist is just shutting down the discussion smh
|
# ? Sep 20, 2017 13:51 |
|
Sad Panda posted:Isn't a moron and is by far not the worst thing. One farmer told me not to go along the wild coast as the people there are barely out of their caves. That seems worse. The dude is at best a colourblind racist and deeply ignorant. There is a long history, rooted in academia and politics since at least the Victorian era leading up to fairly recently (in some parts of the world), of considering some races to be "more primitive" or "animal-like" than others, and using that as a justification for racist policies. Also, my memories of growing up as a kid in KZN 25-35 years ago did not include calling each other baboons. They did include hearing other kids at school tell really terrible, unfunny, racist jokes comparing black people to gorillas. Please read this take from late 2015 on anti-Zuma protests and whiteness: https://sanitythinksoutloud.com/201...ow-up-to-do-it/ Siya Khumalo posted:The narrative of white moral whiteness will not allow this. Having been preserved by a system that called black people animals, they cannot bear to be hunted down like animals. Someone at the protest had a sign that read, “ZOOMUCH.” I wanted to whisper to her, “Put that away.” She doesn’t get it. Most white people don’t. Who gets to call whom a “zoo” or a “circus” now is a more complex and contentious issue than they realise.
|
# ? Sep 20, 2017 22:52 |
|
Badger of Basra posted:Calling Ian Smith a racist is just shutting down the discussion smh lol I will NOT stand for the slandering of the Terreblanche name!!!
|
# ? Sep 22, 2017 22:46 |
|
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-rights-pygmies-wildlife/wildlife-charities-fund-abuses-of-pygmies-in-congo-basin-report-idUSKCN1C02FHquote:LONDON (Thomson Reuters Foundation) - International wildlife charities are funding anti-poaching squads that arrest, torture and kill indigenous ‘pygmy’ people for hunting in their ancestral forests in the Congo Basin, according to a charity for tribal people.
|
# ? Sep 26, 2017 16:41 |
|
I'm sure torturing pygmies is a lot safer than trying to go after the international poachers who are turning endangered species into dick pills for the Chinese.
|
# ? Sep 26, 2017 23:40 |
|
Cat Mattress posted:I'm sure torturing pygmies is a lot safer than trying to go after the international poachers who are turning endangered species into dick pills for the Chinese. You'd think it would be cheaper to just sell some ground up onion powder or whatever instead of going to the effort of harvesting actual endangered animals. How's the customer gonna verify authenticity anyway?
|
# ? Sep 27, 2017 05:34 |
|
For what it's worth hunter-gatherers are really good at extincting species.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2017 13:56 |
|
Dance Officer posted:For what it's worth hunter-gatherers are really good at extincting species. On the other hand, Westerners are really good at extincting hunter-gatherers.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2017 21:34 |
|
Fallen Hamprince posted:On the other hand, Westerners are really good at extincting hunter-gatherers. The circle of life.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2017 21:55 |
|
We should add hunter-gatherers to the endangered species list.
|
# ? Sep 28, 2017 00:02 |
|
mobby_6kl posted:We should add hunter-gatherers to the endangered species list. Clearly in need of a captive breeding program in zoos. No, of course I don't see any race or other ethical issues with that, and nothing could go wrong.
|
# ? Sep 28, 2017 23:59 |
|
So what should be the appropriate way to handle traditional groups that are, themselves, at risk of causing ecological destruction? Obviously "empower a bunch of mercenaries to do whatever" is, uh, suboptimal, but this sort of situation isn't even in "agree to reasonable fishing standards" radius, it's a lot harder to figure out or enforce. Although that might be the correct sort of idea in the end. I mean, in this context, another answer is "don't expand protected parks".
|
# ? Sep 29, 2017 00:04 |
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:So what should be the appropriate way to handle traditional groups that are, themselves, at risk of causing ecological destruction? I think the correct answer is to engage with indigenous people when doing things like expanding protected parks. It's been working pretty well in Canada. http://www.firstnations.eu/ PS: I can assure you that no band of indigenous hunter-gatherers is capable of being as ecologically destructive as, say, a copper mine, or a hydro dam, or clearcutting a rainforest to make way for a McDonalds cow pasture. PPS: I know a lot of the last few posts have been "joking", but they are still some uncomfortably racist bullshit.
|
# ? Sep 29, 2017 01:45 |
|
Sad Panda posted:Isn't a moron and is by far not the worst thing. One farmer told me not to go along the wild coast as the people there are barely out of their caves. That seems worse. Actually the afrikaans word for baboon is bobbejaan, very close in etymology to the word baboons. Other interesting thing about baboons is that baboons and leopards don't get along at all, and calling any person of colour a baboon (or bobbejaan) is an extremely racist thing to do. Now if he wanted to describe Zuma as a loving corrupt shithead (not sure on the Afrikaans translation of this, probably something to do with the word "doos") than he would be right, but the fact that he uses a word that is heavily associated with racism when directed to black people shows un underlying racist attitude here. Think about it this way, if an American referred to Obama as a "porch monkey" would you think it wasn't racist?
|
# ? Sep 29, 2017 02:03 |
|
Dance Officer posted:For what it's worth hunter-gatherers are really good at extincting species. When they're suddenly introduced in a new land, perhaps. But not when you're talking about a society that has stabilized in equilibrium with its environment for several centuries. Claiming that these guys are responsible for extinction is just a way to blame our own crimes on our own victims. It's extremely scummy.
|
# ? Sep 29, 2017 02:09 |
|
https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/915736507268370432 The hell does a 'routine patrol' in Niger entail. Is there a resource out there for learning about the US military presence in Africa and what they're upto? What are the major client states? mila kunis fucked around with this message at 02:16 on Oct 5, 2017 |
# ? Oct 5, 2017 02:01 |
|
tekz posted:https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/915736507268370432 The USA has troops in 177 of the 196 countries in the world. Most of them are probably stationed at embassies -- I know for sure there isn't a deployment or base in South Africa. http://www.businessinsider.com/us-military-personnel-deployments-by-country-2017-3 But there are a handful of US troops on UN peacekeeping missions (even a tiny country like Sweden contributes more troops, lol): https://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/resources/statistics/contributors.shtml So that could be it? Oh right, it's probably more this: https://news.vice.com/story/the-u-s-is-waging-a-massive-shadow-war-in-africa-exclusive-documents-reveal That sounds way more like the USA.
|
# ? Oct 5, 2017 03:31 |
|
For some bonus luls, here's a description of joint US/South African exercises this year: https://mg.co.za/article/2017-08-25-00-why-is-the-us-chasing-congolese-rebels-in-the-northern-capequote:But among South African National Defence Force (SANDF) generals and troops, there was a straightening of uniforms in anticipation of hosting the most powerful military in the world.
|
# ? Oct 5, 2017 03:31 |
|
Madagascar is victim to an epidemic of pneumonic plague. https://www.livescience.com/60623-plague-outbreak-in-madagascar.html Video games lied to us.
|
# ? Oct 7, 2017 15:48 |
|
https://twitter.com/AlBoeNEWS/status/916777020989726720
|
# ? Oct 7, 2017 22:42 |
|
Apparently a gas station exploded and made another station nearby explode as well. Happened near the capital, in a place called Atomic Junction. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/10/blast-gas-station-rocks-ghana-capital-accra-171007211009348.html
|
# ? Oct 7, 2017 23:01 |
|
Cat Mattress posted:Apparently a gas station exploded and made another station nearby explode as well. Happened near the capital, in a place called Atomic Junction. Two years ago, there was another gas station explosion in Accra during a big rain storm, killing over 250 people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Accra_explosion). Hopefully fewer people were affected this time.
|
# ? Oct 8, 2017 00:57 |
|
This looks like it could be from Russia, except in Russia people wouldn't run but continue chugging Vodka because gigantic fireballs aren't remarkable enough to interrupt daily life
|
# ? Oct 8, 2017 01:26 |
|
blowfish posted:This looks like it could be from Russia, except in Russia people wouldn't run but continue chugging Vodka because gigantic fireballs aren't remarkable enough to interrupt daily life I'm reminded of that Russian dashcam video where the meteor falls from the sky and the driver just impassively lowers the sun blocker thingy because it's bright.
|
# ? Oct 8, 2017 01:30 |
|
Cat Mattress posted:When they're suddenly introduced in a new land, perhaps. But not when you're talking about a society that has stabilized in equilibrium with its environment for several centuries. No I'm not blaming them as the sole proprietors of animal extinctions, but there's a ton of archaeological evidence that, wherever our species settled, most big animals disappeared in short order. So what I meant is that these groups are a credible danger as well and something should be done about it. (though murdering them all seems a bit extreme to me)
|
# ? Oct 8, 2017 17:06 |
|
Dance Officer posted:No I'm not blaming them as the sole proprietors of animal extinctions, but there's a ton of archaeological evidence that, wherever our species settled, most big animals disappeared in short order. So what I meant is that these groups are a credible danger as well and something should be done about it. (though murdering them all seems a bit extreme to me) Key word here is "settled". African megafauna survived just fine until colonialism. Man is part of nature and strikes a balance with it. That's not hippie mumbo-jumbo, that's fact. When you have traditional societies that have lived a stable lifestyle for hundreds of generations, their environment is adapted to them, just as they are adapted to it. When humans arrive at a place they weren't there before, or at least different humans from those who lived there previously, or when there is a drastic change in lifestyle (say, an industrial revolution or three) that is when extinctions happen.
|
# ? Oct 8, 2017 17:32 |
|
Cat Mattress posted:Key word here is "settled". African megafauna survived just fine until colonialism. What a load of bullshit. Africa is the big exception because humans evolved there over a long time, allowing animals to coevolve with humans and instinctively avoid them. Eurasia was already much harder-hit by early human colonisation, and for all megafauna located even further from Africa than that (e.g. Australia, South America), already-advanced humans suddenly showing up with spears was basically armageddon. Of course, a new balance will eventually set in as it does in every ecosystem even after massive disturbances, but that doesn't mean tribes apparently living ~in balance with nature~ didn't already gently caress up important parts of the ecosystem and break it beyond recognition before Europeans showed up with guns to break even more things.
|
# ? Oct 8, 2017 19:12 |
|
Basically if a terrestrial ecosystem isn't full of megafauna, it's either a tiny rock in the middle of the ocean or got completely hosed by humans.
|
# ? Oct 8, 2017 19:18 |
|
blowfish posted:Of course, a new balance will eventually set in as it does in every ecosystem even after massive disturbances, but that doesn't mean tribes apparently living ~in balance with nature~ didn't already gently caress up important parts of the ecosystem and break it beyond recognition before Europeans showed up with guns to break even more things. The point, if you paid attention, was that they had already set that balance which means that they are not the danger to the animal species that survived to this day. But sure, blame the primitives, say, "their ancestors 1000 years ago were no angels " while American, European or Chinese companies are bulldozing thousands of square kilometers of forest to get palm oil or whatever other lovely resource.
|
# ? Oct 8, 2017 20:05 |
|
Cat Mattress posted:The point, if you paid attention, was that they had already set that balance which means that they are not the danger to the animal species that survived to this day. quote:But sure, blame the primitives, say, "their ancestors 1000 years ago were no angels " while American, European or Chinese companies are bulldozing thousands of square kilometers of forest to get palm oil or whatever other lovely resource.
|
# ? Oct 8, 2017 20:12 |
|
blowfish posted:What a load of bullshit. There is like a 20,000 year delay between colonization of Australia and megafaunal extinction, and the extinction event began roughly a million years before that. Same thing in the Americas, colonization by 16,000 years ago, extinction about 6,000 years later, at a time of a drying event that was probably more of a contributor, though human helping didn't help. Notably, this even also saw microfaunal extinctions in species not used by humans. You're repeating a relatively debunked narrative, based on outdated views of early expansions of human populations as being primarily megafaunal hunters (they weren't), the anthropological data suggest a very different narrative.
|
# ? Oct 8, 2017 20:19 |
|
This dispute is rather pointless in the context of conservation of Africa's natural resources as the prime threat to wildlife more often than not comes from communities of settlers who only entered a region in the colonial era or after independence.
|
# ? Oct 8, 2017 20:21 |
|
I wonder if African nations follow OSHA regulations less than China?
|
# ? Oct 8, 2017 20:50 |
|
KiteAuraan posted:You're repeating a relatively debunked narrative, based on outdated views of early expansions of human populations as being primarily megafaunal hunters (they weren't), the anthropological data suggest a very different narrative. What about New Zealand, where there's plenty of great documentation about how the first settlers killed all of the megafauna? The first settlers of Madagascar did a pretty good job of wiping out nearly all of the large lemurs there too, also within documented history although there the timeline is a little fuzzier (though still quite clear from a broad perspective). It's actually kind of impressive that the Maori were able to kill every moa and haast's eagle within a couple hundred years, given how big New Zealand is. I have no idea about the older extinction events, and/or if coevolution played any role in African megafauna surviving, but small human populations are pretty well documented in recent history as wiping out large animals upon first settlement of a region. I'm sure climate change played a massive role in killing off Siberian tigers, cave bears, etc, but I doubt prehistoric peoples didn't play a substantial role in any of their decline, based on what we know about historic peoples doing similar stuff.
|
# ? Oct 8, 2017 21:03 |
|
Saladman posted:What about New Zealand, where there's plenty of great documentation about how the first settlers killed all of the megafauna? The first settlers of Madagascar did a pretty good job of wiping out nearly all of the large lemurs there too, also within documented history although there the timeline is a little fuzzier (though still quite clear from a broad perspective). It's actually kind of impressive that the Maori were able to kill every moa and haast's eagle within a couple hundred years, given how big New Zealand is. Humans played a role in earlier extinction events, that's not in dispute, but it was a complex process and humans were only one factor. Pleistocene megafauna was gone whether or not humans arrived, it just would have likely extended into the mid-Holocene in some regions, though not all. In the case of Madagascar and New Zealand, I would assume it's the same story as most other islands. Humans tend to wreck island ecosystems something fierce, even if it's a large set of islands like New Zealand. Hawaii is another good example.
|
# ? Oct 8, 2017 21:10 |
|
|
# ? May 27, 2024 03:29 |
|
KiteAuraan posted:Humans played a role in earlier extinction events, that's not in dispute, but it was a complex process and humans were only one factor. Pleistocene megafauna was gone whether or not humans arrived, it just would have likely extended into the mid-Holocene in some regions, though not all. Citation loving. Megafauna survived multiple ice and warm ages before people showed up - credible literature at most suggests that historic climate change made megafauna more susceptible to overhunting so that they suffered a double knockout punch when they would have survived e.g. the last ice age alone. While there may have been technically nonzero humans in America and Australia for a while before animals went extinct, there is a reason that these cultures have only become known very recently - artifacts and skeletons are extremely small in number and thus human populations must have been vanishingly small (and stayed small) until the more well-known larger expansion of e.g. Clovis people in America which does coincide with megafaunal disappearance. Also Madagascar and NZ are basically large enough that if people murdered everything larger than a sheep there it strongly suggests that people would have also been able to murder everything larger than a sheep on a whole continent. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Oct 8, 2017 |
# ? Oct 8, 2017 22:29 |