United We Stand - uwsboard.com

awesome guy wrote:

Major Kong wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:Uruguay is more white than Chile. Costa Rica isn't a bad answer.

Botswana....25% of the population is HIV positive. Sign me up.

Ayup but it's still the most stable African country, even with a ¼ of it's population HIV positive...how about that schitt

Seems like they went the path of a representative government from most tribes, even if their is still BS in outing other tribes from the council. I honestly don't know much of anything about Botswana, but from my limited reading, it sounds like they went more the path of Martin Luther King Jr in acting to get along and work around a democratic republic. South Africa is taking the path of Malcolm X, murder and violence. The peaceful resolution offers the better rewards. Not sure why the South African tribes can't follow suite unless it's just a Zulu thing. They have a hate monger for their president and he's just destroying them from within.

I think if a discussion about what form of government is bes, includes the word "tribes", you are doomed to have a crappy government.

HokieFanDC wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

Major Kong wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:Uruguay is more white than Chile. Costa Rica isn't a bad answer.

Botswana....25% of the population is HIV positive. Sign me up.

Ayup but it's still the most stable African country, even with a ¼ of it's population HIV positive...how about that schitt

Seems like they went the path of a representative government from most tribes, even if their is still BS in outing other tribes from the council. I honestly don't know much of anything about Botswana, but from my limited reading, it sounds like they went more the path of Martin Luther King Jr in acting to get along and work around a democratic republic. South Africa is taking the path of Malcolm X, murder and violence. The peaceful resolution offers the better rewards. Not sure why the South African tribes can't follow suite unless it's just a Zulu thing. They have a hate monger for their president and he's just destroying them from within.

I think if a discussion about what form of government is bes, includes the word "tribes", you are doomed to have a crappy government.

not really. It depends on how the tribes are distributed. If they're in the natural borders (ie, all of the tribe is contained in a state) then it works great. The problems break out when there's diversity of the borders not representing the people within it. Then they fight and undermine each other for dominance. Our form of government is supposed to be tribal, with the states being our version of a tribe. Of course our states are also associated by ideas and business interests instead of ancestry so it's world's different, but it's also a form of tribalism. It seems to be mostly working in Botswana. America is different from the rest of the world. We're one of the few places on earth not built around an ethnic identity or ancestry. We built borders and then put people into them. The rest of the world has the people first with governments built around them. Outside of the US, the ethnic element has to be considered. This is the big blunder/chaotic genius the various european colonists established in Africa and the Middle East via conquest and then establishing borders with rival tribes to divert their energies against each other instead of the colonial power(like they split up the ME) or just having to for resource constraints or not controlling all of the lands of the ethnic group. European nations are mostly tribal in the sense that they (pre muslim invasion) largely share a heritage.

awesome guy wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

Major Kong wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:Uruguay is more white than Chile. Costa Rica isn't a bad answer.

Botswana....25% of the population is HIV positive. Sign me up.

Ayup but it's still the most stable African country, even with a ¼ of it's population HIV positive...how about that schitt

Seems like they went the path of a representative government from most tribes, even if their is still BS in outing other tribes from the council. I honestly don't know much of anything about Botswana, but from my limited reading, it sounds like they went more the path of Martin Luther King Jr in acting to get along and work around a democratic republic. South Africa is taking the path of Malcolm X, murder and violence. The peaceful resolution offers the better rewards. Not sure why the South African tribes can't follow suite unless it's just a Zulu thing. They have a hate monger for their president and he's just destroying them from within.

I think if a discussion about what form of government is bes, includes the word "tribes", you are doomed to have a crappy government.

not really. It depends on how the tribes are distributed. If they're in the natural borders (ie, all of the tribe is contained in a state) then it works great. The problems break out when there's diversity of the borders not representing the people within it. Then they fight and undermine each other for dominance. Our form of government is supposed to be tribal, with the states being our version of a tribe. Of course our states are also associated by ideas and business interests instead of ancestry so it's world's different, but it's also a form of tribalism. It seems to be mostly working in Botswana. America is different from the rest of the world. We're one of the few places on earth not built around an ethnic identity or ancestry. We built borders and then put people into them. The rest of the world has the people first with governments built around them. Outside of the US, the ethnic element has to be considered. This is the big blunder/chaotic genius the various european colonists established in Africa and the Middle East via conquest and then establishing borders with rival tribes to divert their energies against each other instead of the colonial power(like they split up the ME) or just having to for resource constraints or not controlling all of the lands of the ethnic group. European nations are mostly tribal in the sense that they (pre muslim invasion) largely share a heritage.

Agreed, that's what I meant by tribes being plural. In Botswana, there's one major ethnic group that makes up something like 80% of the country. There are tribes within that ethnic group, but they share the same general idea set.

HokieFanDC wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

Major Kong wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:Uruguay is more white than Chile. Costa Rica isn't a bad answer.

Botswana....25% of the population is HIV positive. Sign me up.

Ayup but it's still the most stable African country, even with a ¼ of it's population HIV positive...how about that schitt

Seems like they went the path of a representative government from most tribes, even if their is still BS in outing other tribes from the council. I honestly don't know much of anything about Botswana, but from my limited reading, it sounds like they went more the path of Martin Luther King Jr in acting to get along and work around a democratic republic. South Africa is taking the path of Malcolm X, murder and violence. The peaceful resolution offers the better rewards. Not sure why the South African tribes can't follow suite unless it's just a Zulu thing. They have a hate monger for their president and he's just destroying them from within.

I think if a discussion about what form of government is bes, includes the word "tribes", you are doomed to have a crappy government.

not really. It depends on how the tribes are distributed. If they're in the natural borders (ie, all of the tribe is contained in a state) then it works great. The problems break out when there's diversity of the borders not representing the people within it. Then they fight and undermine each other for dominance. Our form of government is supposed to be tribal, with the states being our version of a tribe. Of course our states are also associated by ideas and business interests instead of ancestry so it's world's different, but it's also a form of tribalism. It seems to be mostly working in Botswana. America is different from the rest of the world. We're one of the few places on earth not built around an ethnic identity or ancestry. We built borders and then put people into them. The rest of the world has the people first with governments built around them. Outside of the US, the ethnic element has to be considered. This is the big blunder/chaotic genius the various european colonists established in Africa and the Middle East via conquest and then establishing borders with rival tribes to divert their energies against each other instead of the colonial power(like they split up the ME) or just having to for resource constraints or not controlling all of the lands of the ethnic group. European nations are mostly tribal in the sense that they (pre muslim invasion) largely share a heritage.

Agreed, that's what I meant by tribes being plural. In Botswana, there's one major ethnic group that makes up something like 80% of the country. There are tribes within that ethnic group, but they share the same general idea set.

Botswana also nationalized most of their mineral wealth. They didn't overly tax or regulate the companies and formed a JV with DeBeers. Compared to their African neighbors, they utilize much of the wealth in infrastructure and throughout the country. Versus the alternative of corruption like their neighbors.

HokieFanDC wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

Major Kong wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:Uruguay is more white than Chile. Costa Rica isn't a bad answer.

Botswana....25% of the population is HIV positive. Sign me up.

Ayup but it's still the most stable African country, even with a ¼ of it's population HIV positive...how about that schitt

Seems like they went the path of a representative government from most tribes, even if their is still BS in outing other tribes from the council. I honestly don't know much of anything about Botswana, but from my limited reading, it sounds like they went more the path of Martin Luther King Jr in acting to get along and work around a democratic republic. South Africa is taking the path of Malcolm X, murder and violence. The peaceful resolution offers the better rewards. Not sure why the South African tribes can't follow suite unless it's just a Zulu thing. They have a hate monger for their president and he's just destroying them from within.

I think if a discussion about what form of government is bes, includes the word "tribes", you are doomed to have a crappy government.

not really. It depends on how the tribes are distributed. If they're in the natural borders (ie, all of the tribe is contained in a state) then it works great. The problems break out when there's diversity of the borders not representing the people within it. Then they fight and undermine each other for dominance. Our form of government is supposed to be tribal, with the states being our version of a tribe. Of course our states are also associated by ideas and business interests instead of ancestry so it's world's different, but it's also a form of tribalism. It seems to be mostly working in Botswana. America is different from the rest of the world. We're one of the few places on earth not built around an ethnic identity or ancestry. We built borders and then put people into them. The rest of the world has the people first with governments built around them. Outside of the US, the ethnic element has to be considered. This is the big blunder/chaotic genius the various european colonists established in Africa and the Middle East via conquest and then establishing borders with rival tribes to divert their energies against each other instead of the colonial power(like they split up the ME) or just having to for resource constraints or not controlling all of the lands of the ethnic group. European nations are mostly tribal in the sense that they (pre muslim invasion) largely share a heritage.

Agreed, that's what I meant by tribes being plural. In Botswana, there's one major ethnic group that makes up something like 80% of the country. There are tribes within that ethnic group, but they share the same general idea set.

Is it like that? Wikipedia says they have like 20 tribes in total with a dozen or so having representation in the tribal council. That sounds a lot like states to me, but built around ethnicity.

awesome guy wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

Major Kong wrote:

Seems like they went the path of a representative government from most tribes, even if their is still BS in outing other tribes from the council. I honestly don't know much of anything about Botswana, but from my limited reading, it sounds like they went more the path of Martin Luther King Jr in acting to get along and work around a democratic republic. South Africa is taking the path of Malcolm X, murder and violence. The peaceful resolution offers the better rewards. Not sure why the South African tribes can't follow suite unless it's just a Zulu thing. They have a hate monger for their president and he's just destroying them from within.

I think if a discussion about what form of government is bes, includes the word "tribes", you are doomed to have a crappy government.

not really. It depends on how the tribes are distributed. If they're in the natural borders (ie, all of the tribe is contained in a state) then it works great. The problems break out when there's diversity of the borders not representing the people within it. Then they fight and undermine each other for dominance. Our form of government is supposed to be tribal, with the states being our version of a tribe. Of course our states are also associated by ideas and business interests instead of ancestry so it's world's different, but it's also a form of tribalism. It seems to be mostly working in Botswana. America is different from the rest of the world. We're one of the few places on earth not built around an ethnic identity or ancestry. We built borders and then put people into them. The rest of the world has the people first with governments built around them. Outside of the US, the ethnic element has to be considered. This is the big blunder/chaotic genius the various european colonists established in Africa and the Middle East via conquest and then establishing borders with rival tribes to divert their energies against each other instead of the colonial power(like they split up the ME) or just having to for resource constraints or not controlling all of the lands of the ethnic group. European nations are mostly tribal in the sense that they (pre muslim invasion) largely share a heritage.

Agreed, that's what I meant by tribes being plural. In Botswana, there's one major ethnic group that makes up something like 80% of the country. There are tribes within that ethnic group, but they share the same general idea set.

Is it like that? Wikipedia says they have like 20 tribes in total with a dozen or so having representation in the tribal council. That sounds a lot like states to me, but built around ethnicity.

Hmmmm....maybe I'm wrong....a good friend lived there for 3 years, I'll blame any errors on her.

Edit: Wikipedia says 79% of the ppl are ethnically Tswana. There are 8 Tswana tribes. So maybe it's the Tswana 8 and 4 more.

here's another good one. Sounds like they're dealing with the same type of dumbasses we do in America, where they think whites just took over the best lands and it's luck that they were successful whereas bad luck that the things built by blacks are largely like Detroit or Compton. Buried deep in the Stefan Molyneux video above is the birth rates. Pre WWII, whites were a slight minority in South Africa. Over the next 60 years, the black population exploded 10 fold under successful farming and the stability brought on by stable government. The white farmers are going on 8 generations of ownership of their land, now the blacks are demanding to take it over as they vastly outbred their lands and haven't successfully managed them. This sounds a lot like gentrification here in the states. A nice and upper class neighborhood is born, blacks move in and it declines till it's a ghetto, then poor and young whites move back in due to the cheap price and build it back to it's past glory. The idiots get jealous and think it's magic or some kind of impropriety that the whites invested in paint and a lawn mower to magically improve the property value. And then that jealousy drives violence and hatred towards the whites. In South Africa, the whites turned the desert into farmable land and now the blacks want those farms. Only when they make a claim on the land, they have the option of taking money from the government or the actual land. In ~90% of the cases they win, they're picking the land. And then many (the over than 70,000 murdered whites) come back to the farm and kill the family, making being a white farmer in South Africa the most dangerous job in the world.

And here's the latest with Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux. Totally sad state of affairs.

Bay_area_Hokie wrote:

UpstateSCHokie wrote:Serious question, which country controlled by black people is the most civilized / safest / technologically advanced?

Same question for Hispanic people?

In Eastern Africa the Kenyans are the upper class. They are like the people from Greenwich CT of Eastern Africa I believe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And I wouldn't wish living in Nairobi on my worst enemy- total shithole.

I think I am on to something regarding the Chinese. After the coming massacre, after-which nothing works, they will come in and take all the natural resources. They will provide stability, and take over. SJWs will lose their minds.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Bay_area_Hokie wrote:I think I am on to something regarding the Chinese. After the coming massacre, after-which nothing works, they will come in and take all the natural resources. They will provide stability, and take over. SJWs will lose their minds.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

As you know, China is already making inroads in Africa. Lots of people see Africa as the next India....im not so sure.

USN_Hokie wrote:As you know, China is already making inroads in Africa. Lots of people see Africa as the next India....im not so sure.

I agry...tribalism is and always has been a part of life in Sub-Sahara Africa. Factor in China's trouble with their Muslim population and see potential "oh schitt" happening.