Zimbabwe nearing end of the road ?

sovtek

Macmorris wrote:

There's a fourth factor - the difference in intelligence between Eurasians and Africans. Eurasians are simply more intelligent than Africans and are more capable of creating and maintaining an advanced civilisation.

The reason why Asians and Europeans are more intelligent than Africans and other dark races is because the environment in which they evolved placed a greater survival advantage on high intelligence and inventiveness. Africans evolved in a warm environment with a relatively plentiful supply of food and so there wasn't much of a need for problem solving abilities. Europeans and Asians evolved in an Ice Age environment where food was scarce and where high intelligence would have given people a clear survival advantage.

Although Africans, and other tropical peoples, would have also had to use their intelligence, they didn't have to contend with the range of problems found in a cold, Ice Age environment. Europeans had to worry about things like keeping warm, storing food, setting traps for large mammals, developing a more sophisticated range of weapons and tools, and migrating in search of new food. All of these extra environmental demands would have favoured the reproduction of people with good problem solving abilities. Their genes still exist in the gene pools of the Asians and Europeans today and account for the difference in intelligence between the races.

There is a more detailed explanation of the origin of racial difference here
http://www.geocities.com/race_articles/lynn_race_evol.html

Yea i've heard this racist explanation proferred before. Of course it ignores the fact that civilization, as far as we know, started in the warm Middle East...not in Europe!!!!!!!!!!!!

sovtek

The Corinthian wrote:

They find a scapegoat like they did in Zimbabwe?

Oh they already do that...unfortunetly they aren't half wrong.

murphaph

sovtek wrote:

Yea i've heard this racist explanation proferred before. Of course it ignores the fact that civilization, as far as we know, started in the warm Middle East...not in Europe!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sure the Middle East is warm. It's very warm and dry and pretty hostile where civilisation was reputedly born between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. These folks had to figure out irrigation systems to get the Babylons and Baghdads built so it's a bit different than a warm climate with plentiful natural supplies of food.

The Corinthian

sovtek wrote:

Oh they already do that...unfortunetly they aren't half wrong.

At this stage, that's a pretty questionable opinion.

Quantum

Sand wrote:

The developed "free" world has signed up to and honoured many declarations of human rights, theres been promises of "never again". To be honest Im sick of feel good politics. After Rwanda, we have Darfur. Same stuff happening all over again. The same organisation that is actually working *against* the defence of human rights, not upholding them. Not really its fault, no more than it actually achieved anything but it offers a mechanism for two of the most illiberal powers in the world, Russia and China to prevent any intervention in defence of human rights. Actually it offers them the moral highground in preserving illiberal states.

Roll our tanks in on top of every murderous tin pot dicatator starving his people, perverting the political proccess and inflicting misery on those whose interests hes supposed to act? You say it like it would be a bad idea to actually back up the commonly asserted view that a Zimbabwean has the same rights as you or I. At the end of the day you can either defend states or defend people but you cant do both.

It's so refreshing to see someone else who doesn't buy into the Aid obsessed - blame the rest of the world - pour more funds in through Debt cancellations schemes theory. Just rememebr that it is deeply politically incorrect to hold these views.

What has perpetuated the shambles that is Africa for fifty years is the unwilingness of the rich western world to anything for the people of Africa except throw money at them and thereby strengthen corrupt regimes throughout the coninent who thrive on war and poverty.
The liberal and politically correct sector have no interest in actually liberating these people at any costs whatsoever because of their obsession with sovereignty and the theory that to liberate is an interference with the rights of the people being liberated and neo-imperialist racist colonialism as you correct say. It is an indifference that underpins the deeply amoral policy of the West toward Africa for decades and continues in the guise of the barmy Debt cancellation scheme, which will lead to a new round of debt escallation and poverty and death. BUt it will make a lot of people feel a lot more comfortable as they sit smugly back and say to themselves that they tried.

Zimbabwe sits there.... people dying, people being made homeless, people starving. What does anyone do ? Nothing. Lots of wringing of hands, talk talk talk about sanctions. But where are the protestors ? where is the outrage ? It doesn't exist because most people don't give a damn. There's no stomach for ousting Mugabe because that would infringe on the rights of the people to suffer and die behind the wall of liberal political correctness.

Quantum

mike65 wrote:

I won't go through the whole list but India/Pakistan/Malaysia/Thailand/Burma/Vietnam/Laos/Indonesia/Singapore/Hong Kong and even mainland China in a funny way (no British rule but plenty of licence) were colonised by European powers.

Let's not forget that almost every part of Europe was internally colonised many many many times itself over the centuries and millenia, including Ireland. This has happened in every region of the world and has nothing to do with the state of Africa which is an incredibly rich region in terms of natural resources.

bonkey

Quantum wrote:

It's so refreshing to see someone else who doesn't buy into the Aid obsessed - blame the rest of the world - pour more funds in through Debt cancellations schemes theory.

...

Zimbabwe sits there.... people dying, people being made homeless, people starving. What does anyone do ? Nothing.

Its amazing that you can begin a post saying its nice to see someone not buying into the "give them more aid" mainstream concept, and then turn around and say that the mainstream concept is "do nothing".

Its even more amazing considering that in a recent thread you went to great lengths to argue that rather than give aid, we should let them sort themselves out and then offer them investment.

So keep up the criticism of those who'll do nothing. It makes your own stance of letting them sort out their own problems (re: corruption) even more untenable.

jc

pete

Macmorris wrote:

There is a more detailed explanation of the origin of racial difference here
http://www.geocities.com/race_articles/lynn_race_evol.html

I love this "I can prove we're superior to the darkies" stuff.

The above article is taken from "Mankind Quarterly":

The Mankind Quarterly, dedicated to'race-science' and 'racial history', was established in 1960 by Professor R. Gayre of Edinburgh who believed that 'racial fundamentals' were 'all important' in human affairs. He maintained that scientific evidence proved blacks 'prefer their leisure to the dynamism which the white and yellow races show'.(25) Gayre's work owed a heavy debt to that of Hans F. K. Günther, a major Nazi race theorist. Indeed, Gayre's first important work, Teutotn and Slav, argued for improving the 'racial homogeneity' and 'Nordic' purity of the German nation.(26) Among the founders, early editors, advisory board members and contributors to the /20/ Mankind Quarterly one finds people who have supported apartheid and neo-Nazism, such as Donald Swan, Robert Kuttner [link: http://www.ferris.edu/isar/bibliography/kuttner.htm] and the South African, J. Hofmeyer.

In the late 1970s, control of the Mankind Quarterly - was transferred to Roger Pearson [link :http://www.ferris.edu/isar/bios/pearbib.htm] in Washington D.C. who came to the United States from Britain in the mid-1960s to work with Willis Carto, America's leading publisher of antisemitic literature.

http://www.ferris.edu/ISAR/archives/mehler/foundation.htm

And on the author of the article:

The link between The Bell Curve and the racist and fascist group surrounding Mankind Quarterly is not accidental. Murray and Herrnstein acknowledge the guidance and literature of Richard Lynn, a professor of psychology in Northern Ireland. Lynn is an associate editor of Mankind Quarterly, whose work is cited in The Bell Curve no less than twenty-four times. Murray and Herrnstein note Lynn's assertion that the IQ of blacks in Africa is 70, at the low end of what is considered educably retarded. Although Lynn maintains that an IQ of 70 is a valid approximation of black IQ throughout Africa, it is based on a single 1989 study of 1000 sixteen-year-olds using the South African Junior Aptitude Test.

Furthermore, the actual author of this 1989 study was not Lynn but Dr. Ken Owen, who maintained explicitly that the results in no way suggested a biological inferiority of black people, but were the result of poorer education of black children under the racist system of apartheid. Yet both Lynn, and Murray and Herrnstein, insist on drawing racist implications from the Owen study, and from other such reports conducted under apartheid.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45/019.html

Von

Quantum wrote:

Zimbabwe sits there.... people dying, people being made homeless, people starving. What does anyone do ? Nothing. Lots of wringing of hands, talk talk talk about sanctions. But where are the protestors ? where is the outrage ? It doesn't exist because most people don't give a damn. There's no stomach for ousting Mugabe because that would infringe on the rights of the people to suffer and die behind the wall of liberal political correctness.

What have you done then?

As for Darfur, it's business as usual.

A millionaire British businessman, Friedhelm Eronat, was named last night as the purchaser of oil rights in the Darfur region of Sudan, where the regime is accused of war crimes and where millions of tribespeople are alleged to have been forced to flee, amid mass rapes or murders.

Quantum

bonkey wrote:

Its amazing that you can begin a post saying its nice to see someone not buying into the "give them more aid" mainstream concept, and then turn around and say that the mainstream concept is "do nothing".

Its even more amazing considering that in a recent thread you went to great lengths to argue that rather than give aid, we should let them sort themselves out and then offer them investment.

So keep up the criticism of those who'll do nothing. It makes your own stance of letting them sort out their own problems (re: corruption) even more untenable.

jc

I'm not going to let you wind me up Bonkey and I don't want to start the other thread here. But you chose to mis represent what I say every time you post. so let me state exactly what I support and don't in simple terms:

I oppose Debt Cancellation and huge amounts of Aid, which I characterised above (perhaps lazily - I admit) as 'doing nothing', in that the doing was intended to represent 'action' rather than just money.

I support limited aid aimed at developing democratic institutions and structures and the eradication of corruption if they are done together.

I support Democracy, Trade and Investment as the solution for Africa.

I support military intervention to liberate any country under dictatorial regimes, by any democratic country that is able and willing to do so.

I have never ever implied that I supported letting them sort themselves out.

bonkey

Quantum wrote:

I'm not going to let you wind me up Bonkey and I don't want to start the other thread here.

Thats funny, because I read the post that I responded to and found it to be almost devoid of content that wasn't referencing back to the thread that was just closed.

Here was me replying thinking it was you trying to wind me up.

But you chose to mis represent what I say every time you post.

If I'm misrepresenting you its because I can't find a consistent message in your posts. I know roughly where you stand, but the details keep shifting from what I can see. Maybe I am misrepresenting you, but let me show you what I mean.

so let me state exactly what I support and don't in simple terms:

I'll respond with former quotes that you've previously made - the italicised bits below are all from your recent posts. Maybe it will highlight why I'm apparently misrepresenting you.

I support limited aid aimed at developing democratic institutions and structures and the eradication of corruption if they are done together.

They must tackle their corruption and develop democratic structures that can empower the people and build success. The African people must do this - not us.

I support Democracy, Trade and Investment as the solution for Africa.

I made it clear that there will be no investment until the corruption is dealt with.

I support military intervention to liberate any country under dictatorial regimes, by any democratic country that is able and willing to do so.

There is no way to force these countries not to do the same again. There is no mechanism to force them and I believe the same will happen again.
...
The African people must do this - not us.

I have never ever implied that I supported letting them sort themselves out.

They must tackle their corruption and develop democratic structures that can empower the people and build success. The African people must do this - not us.

I can't see how the two sets of comments form a consistent position.

Either we can, or cannot force a solution (military-backed or other) on them.
Either it is the African people alone or all of us together who can tackle these issues.
Either we help them fight corruption, or we withhold our help (you see investment as the way to go) until they have done this themselves.

So to reiterate - if I'm misrepresenting your position, its only because I can't see that you've staked out a consistent position.

jc

sovtek

murphaph wrote:

wtf? Southern Africa is one of the most bountiful lands in the world with coal, oil, natural gas, gold and other precious metals, diamonds and other precious gemstones, Iron ore, Bauxite. They have a dependable climate with few extremes. They have extraordinarily fertile soils in many parts. Southern Africa is in the Sh!tter though and it does indeed have a lot to do with the people whether you think that's racialist (racist) or not.

You mean it has alot to do with the people that came from somewhere else and took it from them (these people you refer to)...whilst getting stupidly rich in doing so and taking that money somewhere else....like New York or London

murphaph

sovtek wrote:

You mean it has alot to do with the people that came from somewhere else and took it from them (these people you refer to)...whilst getting stupidly rich in doing so and taking that money somewhere else....like New York or London

So now it's not geography and climate having conspired against the africans developing great civilisations , it's now back to imperialism. This imperialism only started a relatively short time ago in relation to the history of man. We were discussing why sub-saharan Africa had not developed any great civilisations so my point is still valid. Esentially they failed to take advantage of their local resources while asian & european peoples were taking advantage of theirs. These civilistations then moved outward and began taking advantage of Africa's resources using their military might and industrial ability to do it. This appears immoral today but back in those days it didn't because the Africans were considered not much more deserving than monkeys by europeans to be sitting on their huge natural resources whilst no exploiting them.

sovtek

murphaph wrote:

This imperialism only started a relatively short time ago in relation to the history of man. We were discussing why sub-saharan Africa had not developed any great civilisations so my point is still valid.

Look up Great Zimbabwe Ruins in google.
Of course this ignores the point that believing that you are somehow intellictually more advanced than another race...is racist.
Another point I want to make is that just because one group of people didn't invent the road...doesn't mean that the Romans were more intelligent than their "inferior" contemporaries.
Americans reached the moon before anyone else on earth....does that mean Americans are somehow more intelligent than the Brits? Russians? Africans?

Quantum

bonkey wrote:

Thats funny, because I read the post that I responded to and found it to be almost devoid of content that wasn't referencing back to the thread that was just closed.

You're a very hard guy to give the benefit of the doubt to.... You really do read only what you want to read.

Quantum wrote:

I support limited aid aimed at developing democratic institutions and structures and the eradication of corruption if they are done together.

They must tackle their corruption and develop democratic structures that can empower the people and build success. The African people must do this - not us.

Exactly, and no inconsistency there. We cannot build their structures or eradicate corruption for them. They must do it, but i support limited aid for that purpose. I really don't see how you can misinterpret this.

Quantum wrote:

I support Democracy, Trade and Investment as the solution for Africa.

I made it clear that there will be no investment until the corruption is dealt with.

Exactly. I really don't see how you can misinterpret this, or how you can imply there is any inconsistency.

Quantum wrote:

I support military intervention to liberate any country under dictatorial regimes, by any democratic country that is able and willing to do so.

There is no way to force these countries not to do the same again. There is no mechanism to force them and I believe the same will happen again.
...
The African people must do this - not us.

You are taking a quote out of context, not for the first time. My words above were made in a post that referred to the Debt Cancellation program where I said that THAT PROGRAM had no way to force these countries not to do the same again. I really don't see how you can misinterpret this, or how you can imply there is any inconsistency.

Quantum wrote:

I have never ever implied that I supported letting them sort themselves out

They must tackle their corruption and develop democratic structures that can empower the people and build success. The African people must do this - not us.

My comments on this have been clear - THEY must do the work - but I do support limited aid to help them. I do NOT support significant Aid until this is sorted. I never stated that they should be left alone and not influenced or helped at all in any way.

Bonkey wrote:

I can't see how the two sets of comments form a consistent position.

I really don't see how you can misinterpret any of my statements above, or how you can imply there is any inconsistency.

Bonkey wrote:

So to reiterate - if I'm misrepresenting your position, its only because I can't see that you've staked out a consistent position.

No. It seems to me that you only see what you want to see and don't read what I write.

As I demonstrate above there is no inconsistency, no minsunderstanding. I have been crystal clear. Agree or disagree. That's fine with me.

murphaph

sovtek wrote:

Look up Great Zimbabwe Ruins in google.
Of course this ignores the point that believing that you are somehow intellictually more advanced than another race...is racist.

Perhaps it does fit the dictionary definition of racism. I never said I personally was more intellectually superior than anyone (as my atrocious spelling will attest!). We were debating why Sub-Saharan Africa had not produced any of the world's great civilisations. You tried to correlate this to their environmantal conditions which clearly doesn't have any correlation of note and when challenged fell back on the imperialism is the cause of all their woes line which also fails to explain the lack of great civilisations from Sub-Saharan Africa because they had millenia to come up with something before europeans arrived on the scene.

sovtek wrote:

Another point I want to make is that just because one group of people didn't invent the road...doesn't mean that the Romans were more intelligent than their "inferior" contemporaries.
Americans reached the moon before anyone else on earth....does that mean Americans are somehow more intelligent than the Brits? Russians? Africans?

Your analogy fails because it's predominantly comparing the same race. Romans, Germanic tribes, Americans, British and Russians were/are predominantly caucasian. Anyway, the Romans didn't invent roads, not even straight roads because they were invented by the Etruscans.

It seems that any attempt to correlate Africa's woes to it's own people lead to accusations of racism. PC gone mad again.

Quantum

murphaph wrote:

It seems that any attempt to correlate Africa's woes to it's own people lead to accusations of racism. PC gone mad again.

Wrong. It's the attempt to correlate Africa's woes to their intelligence that is transparently racist. It has nothing to do with PC or not PC.

bonkey

Quantum wrote:

My comments on this have been clear - THEY must do the work - but I do support limited aid to help them. I do NOT support significant Aid until this is sorted. I never stated that they should be left alone and not influenced or helped at all in any way.

OK - when you used the word alone previously, I assumed you were using it in the sense you now use it here. You didn't mean that - ok.

But when you talk about no significant aid until they resolve their corruption issues, where exactly are setting the bar? Higher than the current level - excluding, if you like, such plans as the existing and proposed HIPC Debt Initiatives, etc. ? Or at, or below them?

The reason I'm asking is because I still can't see how this approach will in any way help those suffering in corrupt nations, but one of your criticisms of the latest iniative is by being limited in the scope of nations it applies to, it does nothing for such people.

Surely the initiative is taking exactly the same type of path you recommend, in setting requirements for eligibility, before which no significant aid is offered? Perhaps you disagree with where the requirements are set but that doesn't invalidate the concept rather than call for refinement. And if this initiative can have no mechanism to ensure continuing compliance, how can any other approach ensure compliance?

Again - it would seem that the only real difference in the approaches (thus far) is what the entry requirements are, rather than who it can help, what it can't do, etc.

Naturally, there then comes the question of what to deliver, which is where the major differences come in. You go for investment, investment, investment, whereas the Debt Relief initiative takes the approach that investment can only happen once the conditions for it are right - i.e. there is a certain minimum level of infrastructure and quality of workforce (even if by quality we are only distinguishing between a starving sufferer and a fed unskilled labourer).

This is why I can't understand your criticism of so many aspects of the proposed plan. You have not explained how your alternative offers the ineligible nations anything more than what they would get under this scheme, but you criticise this scheme as failing to offer them anything more than what they currently get. You have not explained how your barriers of qualification can be set at any more certain a level to prevent regression than those of the Debt Relief program, yet criticise it for being unable to guarantee a prevention of reversion to corruption.

You disagree, at the heart of it all, with the method of assistance. I'm clear on that, but amn't sure how you see investment being initiated once a nation would qualify for your preferred approach. If we consider the nations that are eligible for this proposed program - would any of them be eligible for yours? Are there any nations in common? If not, are there any nations at all which would meet your criteria? And if so - or whenever a nation reaches this stage - what would you do in terms of offering significant aid to attract investment?

The Corinthian

Quantum wrote:

Wrong. It's the attempt to correlate Africa's woes to their intelligence that is transparently racist. It has nothing to do with PC or not PC.

I find it remarkably hypocritical that you of all people should lecture anyone on being racist, seeing as you’ve had no problem making offensive generalisations about other nations and peoples in the past.

murphaph

Quantum wrote:

Wrong. It's the attempt to correlate Africa's woes to their intelligence that is transparently racist. It has nothing to do with PC or not PC.

You're entitled to your opinion of course, but I don't recall stating that Africans were less intelligent than caucasians. They might or might not be, no study of note has been conducted and is highly unlikely to ever be conducted for obvious reasons.

bonkey

murphaph wrote:

also fails to explain the lack of great civilisations from Sub-Saharan Africa because they had millenia to come up with something before europeans arrived on the scene.

Great civilisations come and go. SSA has had millenia to come up with something, sure. Also millenia to lose it and have it buried beyond all recognition.

The famous pyramids in Egypt are not the oldest such buildings in Africa - not by a long shot. They're just less obscured by time, and subsequently more researched and publicised.

jc

murphaph

bonkey wrote:

Great civilisations come and go. SSA has had millenia to come up with something, sure. Also millenia to lose it and have it buried beyond all recognition.

That may be true, do you believe there have been great civilisations in SSA?

Quantum

The Corinthian wrote:

I find it remarkably hypocritical that you of all people should lecture anyone on being racist, seeing as you’ve had no problem making offensive generalisations about other nations and peoples in the past.

I have no intention of taking the bait. My opinions on the incompetence and hypocricy of the italian Government have nothing to do with this thread.

Quantum

murphaph wrote:

You're entitled to your opinion of course, but I don't recall stating that Africans were less intelligent than caucasians.

No offence intended - because I wasn't implying that it was you who said it. I was referring to the post by Macmorris here

murphaph

Quantum wrote:

No offence intended - because I wasn't implying that it was you who said it. I was referring to the post by Macmorris here

Ah, ok. Misunderstanding there. You meant the general 'you' and not the accusative 'you'. No worries, it just read like you meant me.

Quantum

bonkey wrote:

But when you talk about no significant aid until they resolve their corruption issues, where exactly are setting the bar? Higher than the current level - excluding, if you like, such plans as the existing and proposed HIPC Debt Initiatives, etc. ? Or at, or below them?

In principle I would place it far below present levels - though I realise that some countries get far more than others. But it's not a one dimensional problem in Africa. One method doesn't make a solution. My opinion involves, as I have set out before, a combination of democratisation, forced or pressured if necessary, corruption eradication, some targetted and non market damaging aid, and investment.

The reason I'm asking is because I still can't see how this approach will in any way help those suffering in corrupt nations, but one of your criticisms of the latest iniative is by being limited in the scope of nations it applies to, it does nothing for such people.

I agree. But keep in mind that apart from having a general 'opinion' on what I believe is the best solution, I have not proposed a definitive solution that I think will work. My opinions have mainly been targetted at the debt cancellation scheme which i believe will NOT work. Naturally you may get fun out of pouncing on that but I believe it makes complete sense. I don't have the resources, data, information or knowledge to form a definitive opinion on what WILL work. But I have the common sense and education and limited knowledge to form the view that this scheme will NOT work. Howveer I accept that I am in the minority and the majority political view appears to have won out.

Surely the initiative is taking exactly the same type of path you recommend, in setting requirements for eligibility, before which no significant aid is offered? Perhaps you disagree with where the requirements are set but that doesn't invalidate the concept rather than call for refinement. And if this initiative can have no mechanism to ensure continuing compliance, how can any other approach ensure compliance?

Please note that I have not rubbished the requirements or the concept in principle. I have rubbished the fact that in my opinion there is no way of enforcing the requirements and therefore applyingt he principle. Without such enforcement I belieev the scheme cannot work.
However.... to be honest I have no doubt that there will be successes in this scheme. Where countries already have developing democratic structures and where corruption is already being tackled. I am sure the scheme will benefit the people. However I am convinced that a trade based, investment based solution would benefit them a lot more.

gain - it would seem that the only real difference in the approaches (thus far) is what the entry requirements are, rather than who it can help, what it can't do, etc.

No. Enforcement is closer to our basic disagreement.

This is why I can't understand your criticism of so many aspects of the proposed plan. You have not explained how your alternative offers the ineligible nations anything more than what they would get under this scheme, but you criticise this scheme as failing to offer them anything more than what they currently get. You have not explained how your barriers of qualification can be set at any more certain a level to prevent regression than those of the Debt Relief program, yet criticise it for being unable to guarantee a prevention of reversion to corruption.

Because this scheme sets out targets and requirememnts and plans and approvals etc etc etc... but doesn't have any provisions that I can find where they are enforced. Also I simply don't believe non democratic, corrupt regimes should be inclued in ANY such scheme.

You disagree, at the heart of it all, with the method of assistance. I'm clear on that, but amn't sure how you see investment being initiated once a nation would qualify for your preferred approach. If we consider the nations that are eligible for this proposed program - would any of them be eligible for yours? Are there any nations in common? If not, are there any nations at all which would meet your criteria? And if so - or whenever a nation reaches this stage - what would you do in terms of offering significant aid to attract investment?

What aid did China require to encourage investment ? No I am not equating them completely. But the truth of the world economy si that investment does not need encouragement, only the conditions to flourish. It only needs to encounter low labour costs, low over head costs, reliable legal structures of law a and order and of ownership, an environments where competition is fair and profits can be enjoyed by the shareholders. In china some of these criteria don't even apply, yet even so....investors cannot invest fast enough in China.
This is analogy, not a direct comparison.

But at least this is a discussion of alternatives and likely solutions. Up to now I have had to argue persistently about my very right to disagree.

The Corinthian

Quantum wrote:

My opinions on the incompetence and hypocricy of the italian Government have nothing to do with this thread.

You said nothing about the Italian Government - only about Italians; that was quite unambiguous. Neither did you offer a clarification on what you meant in that thread, even though you were given ample opportunity, so you’ll forgive me if I say that I believe you’re being less than honest now.

As such I maintain that you are in no position to lecture others on the topics of racism or bigotry.