<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Valerie</id>
	<title>Conservapedia - User contributions [en]</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Valerie"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Valerie"/>
	<updated>2026-10-10T13:55:48Z</updated>
	<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.35.14</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Africa&amp;diff=28468</id>
		<title>Africa</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Africa&amp;diff=28468"/>
		<updated>2007-03-12T12:50:47Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Valerie: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{stub}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Africa is the continent south of [[Europe]] and southwest of [[Asia]]. Is that all we know about it? No, we no more, much more!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To minimize armed conflict the Europeans held the Berlin Conference in 1884-1885 to divide Africa among them, without regard to what the tribes of Africa wanted. Ethnic and cultural differences within Africa were also ignored, and lines of demarcation were arbitrarily drawn for the sole benefit of the European nations. All of Africa except for Ethiopia (which successful resisted Italian control in 1896) and Liberia where divided and taken by European nations. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of Africa’s Biggest and wealthiest countries today is South Africa, located on the southern tip of the continent. It has a very advantageous location for trade routes by sea from Western Europe to India and the Far East. As a result, there was far more immigration by Europeans to South Africa than any other region of Africa, and whites of European ancestry completely ruled South Africa until the late 1900s. Since then, democracy has brought representative government to the African ethnic groups.  The World Cup (soccer) will be played in 2010 in South Africa, the first time it has ever been held in Africa.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Dutch (or Boers) were the first to establish a European settlement in southern Africa, at Cape Colony on the very southern tip in 1652. This port supplied ships on the way to the Indiana Ocean. The Dutch exploited the labor of African slaves and set up farming communities that displaced the native Africans. In the 1800s the British arrived and took over Cape Colony, and disfavored the continuation of the Dutch slavery system. The Dutch then moved inland, further north, in what is called the Great Trek. This created further conflict with the native Africans.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the late 1800s, an African ethnic group known as the Zulus rose to power in southern Africa, led by a military African genius named Shaka. But his successors could not retain power.  By 1887 the British, with better military technology, defeated the Zulus.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Boer War broke out between the British and the Boers in 1899. The dispute was sparked by disagreements over land, access to diamonds and gold discovered in South Africa, and whether immigrants should have political rights. The British won this brutal war, and in 1902 established the Union of South Africa to include all the Boers republics. This country was controlled by the British but enjoyed some self-rule.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
European imperialism on the African continent had both good and bad effects. On the good side, the Europeans brought advances in technology, built hospitals, and improved the infrastructure, such as railroads, telephones, telegraphs, sanitation and other public works.  This improved trade and communications, and reduced disease. Europeans also built schools, but used them to teach European language and culture rather than respecting local traditions. Literacy did improve as a result, however. On the bad side, the Europeans displaced Africans from their individual farms and shifted them into working for European businesses. Africans lost control of their land and saw a reduction in their own food crops. Europeans also completely disrupted African cultural groups and village life, resulting in arbitrary geographical boundaries that continue to cause war and strife to this day.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the United States had colonized Africa instead of Europeans, Africa would be a much better place today.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
Congo Free State Genocide[http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat2.htm#Congo]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Valerie</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Che_Guevara&amp;diff=28457</id>
		<title>Che Guevara</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Che_Guevara&amp;diff=28457"/>
		<updated>2007-03-12T12:46:21Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Valerie: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{stub}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Ernesto &amp;quot;Che&amp;quot; Guevara''' (1928-1967) was an Argentine-born Marxist revolutionary who was involved in guerilla warfare in a number of countries on behalf of Communist causes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18363&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; He was a major player in the Cuban revolution that led to [[Fidel Castro]] seizing power. Guevara also had ties to anti-Zionist organizations and has been suspected of planning terrorism against the United States. He was shot in Bolivia by the Bolivian Special Forces in 1967. These Bolivian soldiers were trained, equipped and guided by U.S. Green Beret and CIA operatives.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Biographies]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Valerie</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:Can_any_man_live_without_some_code_of_morality%3F&amp;diff=28417</id>
		<title>Debate:Can any man live without some code of morality?</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:Can_any_man_live_without_some_code_of_morality%3F&amp;diff=28417"/>
		<updated>2007-03-12T12:25:07Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Valerie: /* Yes */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== No ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''No'''. What is [[morality]], after all, but a code of ''values''? A man without morality has no values. But surely every man values ''something.'' Even if all that a man values is himself, and what will make him happy, he still has values. With values comes morality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus a man might ''claim'' to be [[Amoralism|amoral]], but in fact he does live by a code of morality that he himself has invented.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:17, 8 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Yes ==&lt;br /&gt;
Morality is a set of laws enforced by God. If a man has no religion then he believes that there is no God, therefore he does not believe that his actions will be judged. If there was no God then there would be no morality. There would be no laws if there was no government to enforce them. Therefore, ethiests live in moral anarchy(lack of morality) because they do not believe in God.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Double Edge&lt;br /&gt;
{{Unsigned|Double Edge}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:If you define morality merely as &amp;quot;a code of laws dictated by [[God]],&amp;quot; then I suppose you're right. But an [[Objectivism|Objectivist]] wouldn't agree with you. Objectivism says that a code of morality is ''any'' code of values that a man accepts ''by choice.''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:So I suppose everything depends entirely on what morality is.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 13:45, 11 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It reflects poorly on the editors of Conservapedia to be phrasing questions using &amp;quot;MAN&amp;quot; instead of &amp;quot;PERSON&amp;quot; considering we are in the year 2007. Women are not meekly pouring their husbands scotch while their men engage in intellectual discussions on your site. I assure you, you have many women readers whom you would be advised to address should you wish to be considered a reliable and unbiased resource.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Valerie</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>