| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - revolutions and struggles for independence
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


revolutions and struggles for independence

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: revolutions and struggles for independence
    Posted: 14 Mar 2016 at 20:45
Many of the "great revolutions" and struggles for independence is now well in the past and for some of the most famous before "our time". What I think about is events like the "Russian revolution(s)" of 1917 (1905), the French of 1789 (and later), but not least all the struggles both for independece of nations and for a power "turnover" of the 20.th century inparticular. What is the different views, often from some temporal distance? The negative aspects are not that difficult to see for many of them. Even decolonisation if initial "succesfull" may not be seen to have only solved  problems, but createed new ones and led to many failures. Is the story largely one of disasters, errors and crimes and unfulfilled hopes?It seems in many places some decades ago the great desire was independence,. Todaay it is for many to get away as soon as possible?Years ago the great desire: to get rid of "awfull" european masters. Today: leave for Europe as soon as possible?
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1689
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Mar 2016 at 06:29
There is a belief that if you are victim, you are inclined to be more moral than someone who has not been a victim.  Having been oppressed or taken advantage of, you ar supposedly less likely to do that to someone else.  History has shown that that is not accurate.  The colonialists may have been bad, but the tyrants that arose in, say, Africa after the colonial era, were also oppressive and often worse than the colonials.  The Jews, having faced the holocaust, mistreat the Palestinians (not that it is all one way).  Being a victim does not mean that one is morally superior.
But, I do believe that maybe the former colonies have to break away and go through some difficulties in order to start a new life.  That is probably true of France or Russia or China.  It is unfortunate that death and destruction have to happen, but it does seem like it _has_to_happen_.  Americans have a distorted view of revolution, given that ours wasn't really a revolution.

There is another view that goes with decolonization or revolution, it is that of payback, or just the desire to torment not just the oppressors, but anyone that one can get power over.  It is not just the matter of revenge, it is also a matter of 'they got rich on the backs of "my" people, and so now I will get rich on the backs of "my" people.  Big daddy or papadoc stashing it away instead of developing infrastructure or the economy.


Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 867
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Mar 2016 at 16:11
Revolution is something of a social phenomenon in human society. It tends to occur with dissatisfaction among the population regarding the attitude of the ruling classes, a desire to run your own affairs, or even sometimes a religious or political movement inspired by charismatic individuals. Revolution can therefore either be an expression of public desire for better society or an individuals means of changing regime. Marxism sees revolution as a necessary cyclical evolution of society, and in a sense, I can see why, though I don't share communist/socialist ideals. In one sense, it's a means to a better world, such that America was born out of revolution against Britain, or China threw off colonial domination via their own cultural change. On the other hand it merely creates chaos and hardship as the struggle fails to achieve results quickly, such as in modern Syria, or the imposition of harsh new regimes like Pol Pot's murderous vision of society, or the current fascism of Daesh (Islamic State).
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Mar 2016 at 22:01
Today much of it is of the past I think, meaning that past before most of us living now. Even in some way it may be so for marxist movements and many others based upon 19.th/20 th century ideologies, though we can not be certain.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1689
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Aug 2016 at 23:50
I think that Woodrow Wilson made a mistake when he called for the self-determination of ethnic movements.  This fed into ethnic nationalism and thus ethnic cleansing.  Different ethnic groups should
be able to live together in peace, minority rights should be respected by majorities, and will be respected as long as there is no active animosity occurring because some feel that they have to be at the top of the pecking order.  Of course, it is worse when some people "feel' like the majority.  One does not have to worry about that feeling with tyrannies though.  Tyrannies don't go by majority rule, and they generally respect minorities (as long as they behave, which they do).  When the revolution comes, the minorities who have lived peaceably with the regime, tend to get picked out and picked on for "choosing" the wrong side.  It is not the regimes' tyranny that they have had to worry about, they are not a threat, rather they have to worry about the tyranny of the majority, who all of sudden want payback to anyone who cooperated.
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 867
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Aug 2016 at 10:39
Human tribalism is a feature of our social behaviour sadly and sooner or later, it will re-emerge irrespective of anything that Woodrow Wilson spouted. Sometimes it's no more than a simple 'them and us' attitude, at worst it's outright bigotry or even genocide. Human beings are generally quite friendly until they perceive a societal competition or threat. Then the prevailing attitude of a community can change adversely.
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1689
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Aug 2016 at 03:20
No, I think Wilson presented a modern political rationale justifying the re-emergence of tribalism.  Tribalism as "nationalism," not a nation with the tribe subsumed in it, but the tribe as the nation, with "ethnic cleansing" thrown in to take care of those who are unwanted, who are other.  "Lebensraum" by another name.
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 867
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Aug 2016 at 10:26
Tribalism is part of human social behaviour and has never gone away. It is however often utilised by tyrannies to establish superiority. 'Lebensraum' is merely territorial expansion, not tribalism. The modern rationale is effectively no different to any other devisive opinion ventured by human populations since day one. Dressed up in modern phraseology and conceptualisation perhaps, but essentially the same communal competition as always. The difference between nation and tribe is mutable and always has been, in that tribes form the basis of local government historically and nations are basically only aggregations of such, although one ought to note the differences in national structure that have occurred, ranging from territorial resources and hunting grounds of prehistory to the iron age, the city states of ancient times, the realms of medieval kings, and the later extended nation states evolved from them.
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1689
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Aug 2016 at 22:17
Lebensraum is territorial expansion for the sake of the Master race, the Volk.  Tribalism is divisive in one way, "us" against "them," but it is uniting in another way, by assembling the "us" (and consequently the "them" plural, them over here, and over there, yonder hill, yonder dale.  We should recognize that it has positive effects, as well as negative, in fact if it weren't for the positive effects, unity, identity and belonging, the negative ones wouldn't be so strong, "my side, right or wrong."
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 867
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Aug 2016 at 11:39
No. Hitler had specific ambitions, but lebensraum is German for 'living space'. It doesn't need fascist ideology, though the phrase has become more commonly known because of it.

Tribalism is a normal derivative of primitive social behaviour inherited from our primeval past. It's the same survival tactic that other species use in packs or herds.
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1689
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Aug 2016 at 22:50
I believe Hitler uses the term, Lebensraum, in Mein Kampf.  Of course you are probably right about it being a German concern.  Germany was limited agriculturally, and didn't have the colonies that Britain, and France had, or for that matter Portugal, Spain, Holland.  That is one reason why they got into chemistry, trying to invent new fertilizers, and refrigeration, turn a thermos bottle upside down, and you have a liquid rocket.

I wouldn't call a pack of wolves or herd of buffalo "tribal." ?!?

There are two ways you can look at "natural."  One is where you are coming from, the other is where you are going to.  It is "natural" for humans to eat meat because we have incisors.  Or it is "natural" to not eat meat because we should be at harmony with all life.  So, yes you could say that tribalism is natural, because that is where we come from, but I kind of think that is like admitting there will always be war, because there always has been war and we can't imagine anything different.

Animals are not really tribal, they are not really capable of screwing things up at that high a level.  Tribalism is akin to that false patriotism that says, 'my country, right or wrong."

Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3213
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Aug 2016 at 03:02
In many cases where countries have been colonised by European nations, and have successfully gained independence, the scene has been set for tin pot dictators to fleece the country of it's riches for their own benefit, and rule by terror.

In those cases, it could well be said that the people were far better off when ruled by European colonists.




Edited by toyomotor - 24 Aug 2016 at 01:51
God created 2nd Lieutenants for the amusement of Senior NCO's.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1689
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Aug 2016 at 01:29
It seems like British colonies have done better than average, although that may be my perception.  (Uganda had Ide Amin).  Of course, it doesn't help that many borders in Africa and Asia are fairly artificial, and with Empire there was a mixing of people.

It is just different kinds of corruption, whether ruled by far away European masters or local elites, no??  What do you think?
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3213
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Aug 2016 at 04:00
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

It seems like British colonies have done better than average, although that may be my perception.  (Uganda had Ide Amin).  Of course, it doesn't help that many borders in Africa and Asia are fairly artificial, and with Empire there was a mixing of people.

It is just different kinds of corruption, whether ruled by far away European masters or local elites, no??  What do you think?

Yes you're right. But, unfortunately newly liberated countries seem to have been taken over by despots who fleeced their countries dry, e.g. Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, Ghadafi, Mugabi and many others. This was accompanied by unimaginable brutality and wholesale slaughter.

Closer to home, up intil 1975, Papua New Guinea was an Australian administered territory, and things weren't perfect. but since independence, the country has been rocked by scandal after scandal, and if it weren't for our Foreign Aid, the country would sink.

I have no doubt that their are countries which were former colonies of European nations which have gone the same way. It's for those reasons that I believe that, in many case, those countries would be better off with their colonial rulers.


God created 2nd Lieutenants for the amusement of Senior NCO's.
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 867
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Sep 2016 at 10:52
Quote Animals are not really tribal, they are not really capable of screwing things up at that high a level. Tribalism is akin to that false patriotism that says, 'my country, right or wrong.

You couldn't be more wrong. Tribalism in human beings is the same social instinct that creates packs and herds in nature, only we dress it up as 'politics'. As it happens, Chimpanzee's and have been observed patrolling areas and raiding their neighbours. I recall one sad sequence on a documentary where an unfortunate youngster wandered into rival territory. He was well and truly beaten (swung about at arms length) by an aggressive adult for his mistake and probably didn't survive his injuries.

Edited by caldrail - 03 Sep 2016 at 10:53
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.