| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Were the Nazis uniquely cruel?
  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.


Were the Nazis uniquely cruel?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 56789 17>
Author
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Nov 2010 at 20:33
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

[The slave trade indeed was justified in racial terms, as for example Blackburn has noticed for America.

Here is a summary of some of his thoughts: Increasingly, laws were passed to enforce racial segregation. Such laws helped to create a form of racial solidarity among the white colonists. Increasingly whites, even poor whites, could identify themselves as a part of the privileged race. The privilege of their colour exempted them from slavery and granted them certain civil rights. The plantation owners' fear of resistance and rebellion evolved into a more general white fear of black rebellion. In these ways slavery was crucial to forming the new racial identities in the American colonies.
Those laws and others like them were passed to keep the whites in a position of superiority, yes. But they weren't just anti-black. The attitude to Amerindians was no better (in fact they were treated worse) and neither was the attitude to Orientals. But all of them were predominately economic  in origin: they didn't arise from slavery. In fact poor whites were heavily discriminated against too. Moreover none of this has anything at all to do with Britain.
Quote These new identities and structures tended to undermine white opposition to slavery. Slavery came to be identified with black Africans. In turn, black people were identified as slaves or potential slaves. These racial divisions were sharpest in the English-speaking colonies in the Caribbean and North America.

Black people were the nearest easily available resource, just as trhey were for the Arabs. In fact the enslavement of blacks marks a distinction in favour of blacks, because the oher races weren't considered worth enslaving (not for the economic purposes of slavery in 19th century America.)

 
Anyway my chief objecton here is not you're stating that these attitudes were present in 19th century America, but that they started there. They were merely the continuation of an economic reality that had existed from the earliest times.
Quote
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

 

Not true in the least. It being part of patristic Chroistian doctrine that black was the colour of sin and evil (the devil was of course often seen as black and in many relics of European folklore, like those of St Nicholas in northern Europe, the black character that accompanies him is always the one to be avoided).  

But I already quoted Phil and Origen on this. I don't see why I should bother to provide any more evidence that the attitude to black things - including black people - goes back a whle lot further than 3-400 years.

  

The attitudes to blacks in the middle ages was sometimes prejudice and colored by superstition, but were still much tolerant compared with the attitudes of the 18th century an onwards. For an overview you can read for example Basil Davidssons book The Story of Africa. There he also give examples of attitudes.

Davidson was a journalist and a writer about Africa. I see no reason at all to see him as an authority on the ancient world, the Middle and Far East or the Middle Ages.  As far as I know he was not a historian. The main reason he sees Africa as central to this is that it was only Africa he had studied, and it was Africa where he had built up all his political connections. Ine can expect someone who depended for his living on access to people like Nkrumah and Azikiwe to be rather biassed about the subject.
Quote
As for attitudes among the Greeks and Romans of Antiquity about blacks one can agree with Snowden (in his book Before color prejudice) when he states that: Certain lines of the Greek and Roman profile of Ethiopians remained basically unchanged from Homeros to the end of classical literature - and the image was essentially favorable.

  

Of course you can agree with him. There's just no reason to.

 
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Yes it does. Take the traditional attitude of Hindus to outcastes for instance.

What you seem to be saying is "Yes I'm wrong but I'm still right because my faith tells me so'. Not of course an uncommon attitude.

 

 

We were talking about western racism here and its historical roots. Hindu cast system is a somewhat different discussion.

[/QUOTE]
No we weren't. We were discussing Germany and cruelty. You started focussing, for no warrantable reason, on Western racism and its roots. Western racism is only like anyone else's racism, and the sheer fact that it has roots indicates that it was  not something new.

 

Quote

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

It was very trendy at one point to blame everything on colonalism. You seem to be still stuck in that mindset, but the fashion has passed. We are, most of us, back to appreciating eidence rather than propaganda.

 

One do not have to blame colonialism for everything, but at least one ought to be able to discern the roots of western modern racism in its context of slavery and colonialism.

But you fail to do so, either out of ignorance or for ideological reasons.

Such effrontery. I'm the one discussing the roots. You're the one claiming it grew spontaneously out of nothing in America and the Caribbean as a result of the slave trade. Which is basically chicken-and-egg nonsense - if racism grew out of the slave trade, how come the slave trade got started? If the slave trade grew out of racism, then racism must have existed before it did.

Quote  

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Nonsense. Absolute crude ill-informed nonsense. There hardly ever has been any need to justify the enslaving of blacks or anyone else. What there has desperately been for centuries is a way of rejecting the enslavement of blacks or anyone else.  

 

It is funny that you always think you know more than the experts in the field.

You haven't quoted experts in the field. You've quoted alleged authorities on Africa and the slave trade.
Quote
But it is not only Davidsson that see the roots of later western racism in the era of slavery and slave trade. Similar thoughts is to be found in for example The Making of New World Slavery by Robin Blackburn. Or you can read Sven Lindqvists book Utrota varenda javel (Exterminate all the Brutes) for an overview about  the ideological roots of modern western racism. 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Location: Anatolia&Balkan
Status: Offline
Points: 2798
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Nov 2010 at 21:14
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Depends a bit what you mean by 'Greeks'. Philo and Origen, whom I quoted as examples were of course Hellenes - specifically Alexandians - but then I didn't say they were Greeks in the first place, did I?


I'm afraid I missed your quote there and indeed I did not mean Philo and Origen as Greeks in my previous quote.

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:


I did quote Aristotle's defence of slavery, and mention that he was indeed disturbed by the fact that in enslaving a race it meant you would sometimes be enslaving someone who shouldn't be. But on the whole he seems to hae much the same attitude that was common in the ancient world, that a defeated people deserved to be enslaved.


OK, no objection.

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:


And it doesn't mean it wasn't.
But it does mean they didn't get their ideas from 18/19th century British/American colonisers.
And I see you've pushed pinguin's dates back yet another 100 years. Please tell me what racist crimes England - not of course Britain in the way you casually misstate - was committing around the time of the 100 Years War. Or do you just think all wars are crimes? In which case as with pinguin it's not worth discussing (not in a historical context anyway).


I think you misunderstood me. I didn't suggest that racism and cruelty was based on on 18/19th century British etc colonisers. My original comment was directed to Constantine's example of Herodotus, who is not a representative of that times views on race etc. What happened during the centuries I mentioned is that the world got smaller, societies and cultures clashed and the rest is history...Any underlying concept of racism was just amplified.


FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 23 Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 3326
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Nov 2010 at 21:29
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

 
If not, then what specific crimes are we talking about?  Let's get to cases and let's not forget that the movement to abolish slavery started in Britain.

Whether it was started in Britain or not, the large scale slavery was created in Britain and never before and never after such huge masses of people were forcely transfered on large distances.

Specific crimes were discussed in this thread earlier. A single opium wars example when Chinese were forced to import opium by the British Emprire and France which led to decrease of Chinese population by several tens of millions in 60 years will cover similar or higher number of casualties caused by Nazis. As a result of British actions (concious actions, importantly) 120 million of Chinese people became drug addicts.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Nov 2010 at 21:29
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

 
Incidentally, what British crimes from 1500 on? For own thing there was no Britain (politically) in 1500. For another the English had no colonies, at least not outside the British Isles themselves. Are you claiming that to have a colony at all was itself a crime? If so then we'll just break off the discussion because that is stupid.
 


Call it the crimes of the English crown or whatever you wish.

Your questions are so absurd it doesn't deserve an answer: what British crimes? Give me a break. There are lot of people that suffered from the imperialism comming from the British Islands, including millions of dead people, whatever name you give them: Great Britain, UK, England or whatever.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Nov 2010 at 21:31
Originally posted by Anton Anton wrote:


Whether it was started in Britain or not, the large scale slavery was created in Britain and never before and never after such huge masses of people were forcely transfered on large distances.

Specific crimes were discussed in this thread earlier. A single opium wars example when Chinese were forced to import opium by the British Emprire and France which led to decrease of Chinese population by several tens of millions in 60 years will cover similar or higher number of casualties caused by Nazis. As a result of British actions (concious actions, importantly) 120 million of Chinese people became drug addicts.


Cosign.
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Nov 2010 at 10:53

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Those laws and others like them were passed to keep the whites in a position of superiority, yes. But they weren't just anti-black. The attitude to Amerindians was no better (in fact they were treated worse) and neither was the attitude to Orientals. But all of them were predominately economic  in origin: they didn't arise from slavery. In fact poor whites were heavily discriminated against too. Moreover none of this has anything at all to do with Britain.

Britain had colonies where racial segregation concerning slaves was used and upheld. Britain was also a major player in the colonial era and used racism as a means of exploitation and opression. British authors  also produced many extreme racist books and pamphlets to further add fuel to racist thought and ideology.

So these things have everything to do with Britain.

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Black people were the nearest easily available resource, just as trhey were for the Arabs. In fact the enslavement of blacks marks a distinction in favour of blacks, because the oher races weren't considered worth enslaving (not for the economic purposes of slavery in 19th century America.)

 

Anyway my chief objecton here is not you're stating that these attitudes were present in 19th century America, but that they started there. They were merely the continuation of an economic reality that had existed from the earliest times.

 

I actually stated that such attitudes came into being at least as early as in the 18th century. They were used to justify and defend slavery and to create segregation that could be used against the blacks. But ofcourse prejudice and steretypes have always existed, but it is the systematizing and reinforcement and the extreme racialisation, and its scope and character that were news.

 

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Davidson was a journalist and a writer about Africa. I see no reason at all to see him as an authority on the ancient world, the Middle and Far East or the Middle Ages.  As far as I know he was not a historian. The main reason he sees Africa as central to this is that it was only Africa he had studied, and it was Africa where he had built up all his political connections. Ine can expect someone who depended for his living on access to people like Nkrumah and Azikiwe to be rather biassed about the subject.

 

Also a journalist can aquire knowledge trough many years of studies about a particular subject

And few researchers are in reality totally independent. Also more conservative schoolars are dependant on funds and similar who are administered by people who also are biassed.

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Of course you can agree with him. There's just no reason to.

Well, there is since he gives many examples and have studied the matter in more detail than you have. But you are ofcourse free to believe what you like.

   

 

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Such effrontery. I'm the one discussing the roots. You're the one claiming it grew spontaneously out of nothing in America and the Caribbean as a result of the slave trade. Which is basically chicken-and-egg nonsense - if racism grew out of the slave trade, how come the slave trade got started? If the slave trade grew out of racism, then racism must have existed before it did.

 

Noone said they grew out of nothing, what I said is that the western racism grew out of a wish, or sometimes even a necessity, to justify exploitation of people, in this particular case that we have discussed Africans. Noone denies that ethnic (and religious and sometimes even racial) prejudice and stereotypes existed also before the trans atlantic slave trade.

 

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

You haven't quoted experts in the field. You've quoted alleged authorities on Africa and the slave trade.

 

Slavery,  Africa and western attitudes to Africa belongs in the same context. So those who study these things often also study the attitudes and racism and its roots.

 

 

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Nov 2010 at 11:17
Originally posted by Anton Anton wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

 
If not, then what specific crimes are we talking about?  Let's get to cases and let's not forget that the movement to abolish slavery started in Britain.

Whether it was started in Britain or not, the large scale slavery was created in Britain and never before and never after such huge masses of people were forcely transfered on large distances.
You have to be kidding. We don't of course have statistics - at least I didn't think we did - but how do you know the numbers were greater than say the shipment of slaves to the silver mines in Graeco-Roman times? The Roman Empire on the whole is estimated to have had nearly 20 million slavesWhen you're asked for details, it's not enough just to talk about 'huge masses' or to merely give one side of the picture. Who do you think took more slaves out of Africa - the British and other Europeans, or the Arabs? (Again accurate numbers are impossible, but on the whole it would seem the Arabs took about twice as many as were shipped to America.)
 
From wkipedia this is interesting in this context:
Quote King Gezo of Dahomey said in 1840s:
The slave trade is the ruling principle of my people. It is the source and the glory of their wealth ... the mother lulls the child to sleep with notes of triumph over an enemy reduced to slavery ...[59]

In 1807, the UK Parliament passed the Bill that abolished the trading of slaves. The King of Bonny (now in Nigeria) was horrified at the conclusion of the practice:

We think this trade must go on. That is the verdict of our oracle and the priests. They say that your country, however great, can never stop a trade ordained by God himself.[60]
So much for unique British culpability.
 
Quote
Specific crimes were discussed in this thread earlier. A single opium wars example when Chinese were forced to import opium by the British Emprire and France which led to decrease of Chinese population by several tens of millions in 60 years will cover similar or higher number of casualties caused by Nazis. As a result of British actions (concious actions, importantly) 120 million of Chinese people became drug addicts.
Are you claiming there was no drug adiction in China before the Opium Wars? However, in context, you have to note that opium was legal in Britain itself at the time (not sure about France or the US) - not just using opium but buying and selling it was unregulated. So the British, French and Americans were not doing anything to the Chinese they didn't to their own. Remember this was the heyday of free trade and caveat emptor.


Edited by gcle2003 - 24 Nov 2010 at 11:17
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Nov 2010 at 11:19
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

 
Incidentally, what British crimes from 1500 on? For own thing there was no Britain (politically) in 1500. For another the English had no colonies, at least not outside the British Isles themselves. Are you claiming that to have a colony at all was itself a crime? If so then we'll just break off the discussion because that is stupid.
 


Call it the crimes of the English crown or whatever you wish.

Your questions are so absurd it doesn't deserve an answer: what British crimes? Give me a break. There are lot of people that suffered from the imperialism comming from the British Islands, including millions of dead people, whatever name you give them: Great Britain, UK, England or whatever.
There are a whole stack of allegations of such things, that on inspection don't stand up. I note you can't think of any.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Nov 2010 at 11:28
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

 
Incidentally, what British crimes from 1500 on? For own thing there was no Britain (politically) in 1500. For another the English had no colonies, at least not outside the British Isles themselves. Are you claiming that to have a colony at all was itself a crime? If so then we'll just break off the discussion because that is stupid.
 


Call it the crimes of the English crown or whatever you wish.

Your questions are so absurd it doesn't deserve an answer: what British crimes? Give me a break. There are lot of people that suffered from the imperialism comming from the British Islands, including millions of dead people, whatever name you give them: Great Britain, UK, England or whatever.
There are a whole stack of allegations of such things, that on inspection don't stand up. I note you can't think of any.
 
Do you mean that people from the British islands did not commit any atrocities (or crimes, even if the term crimes must be put in relation to laws and similar) to foreign peoples? What about the Tasmanians or the Pequots, just to mention two examples?
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Nov 2010 at 11:41
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Those laws and others like them were passed to keep the whites in a position of superiority, yes. But they weren't just anti-black. The attitude to Amerindians was no better (in fact they were treated worse) and neither was the attitude to Orientals. But all of them were predominately economic  in origin: they didn't arise from slavery. In fact poor whites were heavily discriminated against too. Moreover none of this has anything at all to do with Britain.

Britain had colonies where racial segregation concerning slaves was used and upheld. Britain was also a major player in the colonial era and used racism as a means of exploitation and opression. British authors  also produced many extreme racist books and pamphlets to further add fuel to racist thought and ideology.

So these things have everything to do with Britain.

Now you're just ignorinig what I write and using the opportunity for some more posturing. My poinit was that the US laws you quoted had nothing to do with Britain. And they didn't, and they don't.
 
No one is disputing there were and are British racists, just as there are Swedish, Danish, Dutch, Norwegian racists. In fact they're everywhere, and where you don't find racial prejudice you probably find religious prejudice. It's the claim that racism simply developed out of the Atlantic slave trade that is totally bizarre and nonsensical.
Quote
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Black people were the nearest easily available resource, just as trhey were for the Arabs. In fact the enslavement of blacks marks a distinction in favour of blacks, because the oher races weren't considered worth enslaving (not for the economic purposes of slavery in 19th century America.)

 

Anyway my chief objecton here is not you're stating that these attitudes were present in 19th century America, but that they started there. They were merely the continuation of an economic reality that had existed from the earliest times.

 

I actually stated that such attitudes came into being at least as early as in the 18th century.

My apologies for an irrelevant and trivial mistake. If you'd said the 18th century BC then you might havehad a point.
Quote
They were used to justify and defend slavery and to create segregation that could be used against the blacks. But ofcourse prejudice and steretypes have always existed, but it is the systematizing and reinforcement and the extreme racialisation, and its scope and character that were news.
So your original position was wrong then? All you are saying is that modern racism is modern whereas 19th century racism was 19th century, and 18th century was 18th century and 1st millenium slavery was earlier still, and that the Atlantic slave trade shipped black slaves westward while the Arab slave trade shipped them eastward, and other slave traders didn't bother only with black slaves but used all colours?
 
Or are you somehow claiming that black slavery is somehow worse than other slavery? Which would of course be both callous and nonsensical.

 

Quote

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Davidson was a journalist and a writer about Africa. I see no reason at all to see him as an authority on the ancient world, the Middle and Far East or the Middle Ages.  As far as I know he was not a historian. The main reason he sees Africa as central to this is that it was only Africa he had studied, and it was Africa where he had built up all his political connections. Ine can expect someone who depended for his living on access to people like Nkrumah and Azikiwe to be rather biassed about the subject.

 

Also a journalist can aquire knowledge trough many years of studies about a particular subject

And few researchers are in reality totally independent. Also more conservative schoolars are dependant on funds and similar who are administered by people who also are biassed.

Then you think none of the are reliable. I won't bother arguing, just point out that establishing X is unreliable and biassed doesn't mean Y is reliable, expecially when Y's morivations are so obvious.
Quote

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Of course you can agree with him. There's just no reason to.

Well, there is since he gives many examples and have studied the matter in more detail than you have. But you are ofcourse free to believe what you like.

   

 

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Such effrontery. I'm the one discussing the roots. You're the one claiming it grew spontaneously out of nothing in America and the Caribbean as a result of the slave trade. Which is basically chicken-and-egg nonsense - if racism grew out of the slave trade, how come the slave trade got started? If the slave trade grew out of racism, then racism must have existed before it did.

 

Noone said they grew out of nothing, what I said is that the western racism grew out of a wish, or sometimes even a necessity, to justify exploitation of people, in this particular case that we have discussed Africans. Noone denies that ethnic (and religious and sometimes even racial) prejudice and stereotypes existed also before the trans atlantic slave trade.

Then why do you keep harping on about the Atlantic trade as if it was somehow superimportant? After all you or possibly pinguin brought it up here. It has nothing to do with the topic, which is essentially about governmental policies (Nazis versus other rulers) and the Atlantic slave trade wasn't managed or run by the British government. The first that government did about the trade was to abolish it (note there was no slave trade in Britain itself), and to send its Navy to put a stop to it.

 

Quote

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

You haven't quoted experts in the field. You've quoted alleged authorities on Africa and the slave trade.

 

Slavery,  Africa and western attitudes to Africa belongs in the same context. So those who study these things often also study the attitudes and racism and its roots.

 

Maybe. But you still haven't quoted experts in those fields. If you ask a chiropractor who knows everything there is to know about spines what's wrong with you he's going to say the trouible is with your spine. Which isn't much use if you have stomach cancer. Or even a toothache.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Nov 2010 at 12:00

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Now you're just ignorinig what I write and using the opportunity for some more posturing. My poinit was that the US laws you quoted had nothing to do with Britain. And they didn't, and they don't.

 

No one is disputing there were and are British racists, just as there are Swedish, Danish, Dutch, Norwegian racists. In fact they're everywhere, and where you don't find racial prejudice you probably find religious prejudice. It's the claim that racism simply developed out of the Atlantic slave trade that is totally bizarre and nonsensical.

 

 

I have not said that only the British are racists. Racist ideology has been present in most western countries in one or another form.

 

 

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

My apologies for an irrelevant and trivial mistake. If you'd said the 18th century BC then you might havehad a point.

 

As I said prejudice is old but systematic western racist ideology is a result of attitudes developed in  the contexty of the slave era and the era of colonialism.

 

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Then you think none of the are reliable. I won't bother arguing, just point out that establishing X is unreliable and biassed doesn't mean Y is reliable, expecially when Y's morivations are so obvious.

 Well, it was you that started to state that some authors were unreliable. One must ofcourse look at every case separately.

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Then why do you keep harping on about the Atlantic trade as if it was somehow superimportant? After all you or possibly pinguin brought it up here. It has nothing to do with the topic, which is essentially about governmental policies (Nazis versus other rulers) and the Atlantic slave trade wasn't managed or run by the British government. The first that government did about the trade was to abolish it (note there was no slave trade in Britain itself), and to send its Navy to put a stop to it.

 

Well since we came into the discussion about it I just took it as an example. And actually it is quite important as a context in which many attitudes about race was born and developed. And the scope of the Atlantic slave trade makes it an important historical phenomena.

 

And about experts on attitudes about blacks during different times you can just start by reading authors like Snowden or Lindqvist to get the hint.

 

Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Nov 2010 at 12:35
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

...
There are a whole stack of allegations of such things, that on inspection don't stand up. I note you can't think of any.


Didn't I mention them already?
Genocides of natives in the Americas and the Pacific.
Major involvement in Slave trade
Anglo-Boer concentration camps.
Drug traffic to China
Genocide by hunger in Ireland and India.
Do you want more examples?
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 5076
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Nov 2010 at 14:17
Graham,

Give it up.  You are under assault by a flightless bird and an extinct sea creature.  LOL

Anglos are the devil; they are evil incarnate; as pinguin so eloquently puts it, it is "as simple as that."

No point you argue is going to matter to these people.

 
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4541
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Nov 2010 at 14:35
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:


If you really knew anything about the Nazi's, then you would know that their main style and most of their inspiration came from Germanic mythology. You really have no idea except to constantly reinforce your biases you learned in school! Would that be correct? No offense intended, of course.
 
The Nazis scooped from broader wells than so. They were also much inspired by earlier racist thinkers and by the colonial empires and their practices.
 
One can for example see many of the thoughts about other races, and about exterminations, expressed (and practiced) by the Nazis already in the writings of people as Robert Knox.


 I'm willing to concede a small point for you, the Nazi nutcases were inspired by one or two other modern racists thinkers whose views were even acknowledged as controversial by their own home countries.  However, whatever they got from Robert Knox was greatly misinterpreted by them, or perverted into fitting in with their message.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Nov 2010 at 14:56
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

 
Incidentally, what British crimes from 1500 on? For own thing there was no Britain (politically) in 1500. For another the English had no colonies, at least not outside the British Isles themselves. Are you claiming that to have a colony at all was itself a crime? If so then we'll just break off the discussion because that is stupid.
 


Call it the crimes of the English crown or whatever you wish.

Your questions are so absurd it doesn't deserve an answer: what British crimes? Give me a break. There are lot of people that suffered from the imperialism comming from the British Islands, including millions of dead people, whatever name you give them: Great Britain, UK, England or whatever.
There are a whole stack of allegations of such things, that on inspection don't stand up. I note you can't think of any.
 
Do you mean that people from the British islands did not commit any atrocities (or crimes, even if the term crimes must be put in relation to laws and similar) to foreign peoples? What about the Tasmanians or the Pequots, just to mention two examples?
'People from the British islands' is not the same thing as 'Britain' which implies authorisation at at least some givernmental level. Of course people from the British Isles have commited crimes, just as Swedes and Russians and Chinese and Japanese have committed crimes in foreign countries. That doesn't justify jumpiing to saying that Sweden, Russia, China or Japan committed those crimes.
 
As for the Pequot, the situation is complicated by the fact that the various Indian tribes allied themselves with either the Dutch or the English n their conflict, and the causes of the Pequot War are very complex, when it comes to determining whoattacked whom. Moreover most of the Pequot appear to have been wiped out by smallpox (an earlier epidemic of which amone rival tribes had led to Pequot dominance) so that there only a few left when the war took place.
 
With the Tasmans the process was much longer over more than a generation, and to a great exent due to various diseases, including venereal ones that led to much sterility among the aborigines. Moreover at least in the earlier period whites taking aboriginal women, willingly or unwillingly, as wives further led to depletion of the tribal population. Much of this was also accounted for by Tasmania's infestation with bushrangers, which was worse than in the other Australian colonies.
 
However, if yo think that colonisation is a crime in itself, then of course all empires including the Britis wold be built on crime. The argument against that is however widespread and fairly cogent: if you are given property you have an obligation to develop it, not just sit on it. That's the message Jesus delivered in the parable of the talents, and it's the way colonisers have justified their actions (when they felt any need to) pretty well throughout history. That the inheriotrs of property should be left to enjoy it and indeed use it to exploit others less fortunate, is of course a staple theme of the capitalist right. There is therefore abundant Marxist/socialist precedent too for the principle that unused and undeveloped property should be expropriated and used for the benefit of the greater community.
 
But that's another debate. If you think colonisation is a crime anyway there's no point in debating specific instances of it.
 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Nov 2010 at 15:05
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

...
There are a whole stack of allegations of such things, that on inspection don't stand up. I note you can't think of any.


Didn't I mention them already?
Genocides of natives in the Americas and the Pacific.
Partially dealt with in a recent post (Pequots and Tasmans). Apart from anything else, define genocide and give specific examples not just burred smears.
Quote
Major involvement in Slave trade
Britain prime mover in abolishing the slave trade: the first country to develop moral opposition to slavery, and take action on an international scale to stop it..
Quote
Anglo-Boer concentration camps.
Dealt with over and over. That you are blind and deaf to the facts is not my fault.
Quote
Drug traffic to China
Dealt with.
Quote
Genocide by hunger in Ireland and India.
Thoroughly dealt with in earlier debates. Not mentioned so far this time, but it really is deadly boring to keep having to point out the same facts every time to an ignoramus who blithely ignores them.
Quote
Do you want more examples?
Only if you give dates, figures, motivations, and consider the role of the British government, not just 'people from the British islands' (sic).
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Nov 2010 at 15:27
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Now you're just ignorinig what I write and using the opportunity for some more posturing. My poinit was that the US laws you quoted had nothing to do with Britain. And they didn't, and they don't.

 

No one is disputing there were and are British racists, just as there are Swedish, Danish, Dutch, Norwegian racists. In fact they're everywhere, and where you don't find racial prejudice you probably find religious prejudice. It's the claim that racism simply developed out of the Atlantic slave trade that is totally bizarre and nonsensical.

 

 

I have not said that only the British are racists. Racist ideology has been present in most western countries in one or another form.

You're so pre-programed you can't even see what's right there staring at you. There has been and is racism in every single country that ever existed. The scale varies somewhat, and the target races vary, that's all. Ascribing it to 'Western countries' is simply pure racist prejudiced propaganda. That in your case it is self-accusatory just makes the psychology more aberrant, that's all.

 

Quote  

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

My apologies for an irrelevant and trivial mistake. If you'd said the 18th century BC then you might havehad a point.

 

As I said prejudice is old but systematic western racist ideology is a result of attitudes developed in  the contexty of the slave era and the era of colonialism.

Western racist ideology is western and racist but not necessarily modern or 19th century. It developed long before there was any west African slave trade. And it is remarkably similar to the middle eastern view on the subject, even where that view differs from orthodox Islamic belief, as this extract shows: http://www.yale.edu/glc/events/race/Hunwick.pdf
Quote ...the Prophet Muhammad said; "“White has no preference over black, nor black over white, except through devoutness”. On another occasion the Prophet is said to have said: "The Arab has no virtue over the non-Arab, nor has the non-Arab over the Arab, nor has the White over the Black, or the Black over the White except in terms of devotion to God. Surely, the noblest of you in God’s sight is the most devout."

Such teachings, however, did not fully influence Arab minds over their views of black Africans. The first century and a half of Islam, as the Arabs went forth from the Arabian peninsula to conquerhalf of the known world, was marked by an overwhelming sense of Arab superiority over all other peoples. In this period even to become a Muslim one had to become a sort of fictive Arab by being adopted as the client of an Arab tribe.4 The conquered peoples as a whole were in fact referred to as the ‘clients’ (maw‹alı), and Islam was viewed as the property of the Arabs.

 

Quote

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Then you think none of the are reliable. I won't bother arguing, just point out that establishing X is unreliable and biassed doesn't mean Y is reliable, expecially when Y's morivations are so obvious.

 Well, it was you that started to state that some authors were unreliable. One must ofcourse look at every case separately.

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Then why do you keep harping on about the Atlantic trade as if it was somehow superimportant? After all you or possibly pinguin brought it up here. It has nothing to do with the topic, which is essentially about governmental policies (Nazis versus other rulers) and the Atlantic slave trade wasn't managed or run by the British government. The first that government did about the trade was to abolish it (note there was no slave trade in Britain itself), and to send its Navy to put a stop to it.

 

Well since we came into the discussion about it I just took it as an example. And actually it is quite important as a context in which many attitudes about race was born and developed. And the scope of the Atlantic slave trade makes it an important historical phenomena.

Of course it's an important historical phenomenon. However it is not the dominazong one you make it out to be. The enslavement of Africans in the Americas is no more important than the enslavement of anyboda else by anybody else. The point is not that you write about the African trade (there were probably more African traders incidentally than there were Europeans involved), but that you restrict yourself to it and you blame it all on the one racial group.
[/QUOTE]

 

And about experts on attitudes about blacks during different times you can just start by reading authors like Snowden or Lindqvist to get the hint.

[/QUOTE]
And you can start studying some history instead of political diatribes.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Nov 2010 at 15:40

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

'People from the British islands' is not the same thing as 'Britain' which implies authorisation at at least some givernmental level. Of course people from the British Isles have commited crimes, just as Swedes and Russians and Chinese and Japanese have committed crimes in foreign countries. That doesn't justify jumpiing to saying that Sweden, Russia, China or Japan committed those crimes.  

 

Well, sometimes it was sanctioned by state, other times atrocities were more local or commited by people outside the state. But still several such crimes was part of a mindset of imperialist thinking that was not only restricted to the state.

 

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

As for the Pequot, the situation is complicated by the fact that the various Indian tribes allied themselves with either the Dutch or the English n their conflict, and the causes of the Pequot War are very complex, when it comes to determining whoattacked whom. Moreover most of the Pequot appear to have been wiped out by smallpox (an earlier epidemic of which amone rival tribes had led to Pequot dominance) so that there only a few left when the war took place.

 

In the Pequot case the colonists reacted in an extreme way to alleged provcocations from the natives. Also the preceeding conflicts were a part of the colonial way to rule by dividing. Smallpox can have weakened the Pequots but still there was atrocities committed against them.

 

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

With the Tasmans the process was much longer over more than a generation, and to a great exent due to various diseases, including venereal ones that led to much sterility among the aborigines. Moreover at least in the earlier period whites taking aboriginal women, willingly or unwillingly, as wives further led to depletion of the tribal population. Much of this was also accounted for by Tasmania's infestation with bushrangers, which was worse than in the other Australian colonies.

 

In the case of Tasmanians there were an ongoing process of atrocities and  violence that also was a part of a colonial process and a mindset that accepted the use of force to appropriate other peoples land and that saw these people as inferior.

 

But both Tasmanians and Pequots are just a couple of illustrative examples on atrocities committed by people from the British islands on the soil of other peoples lands on other continents. There are ofcourse many more.

 

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

However, if yo think that colonisation is a crime in itself, then of course all empires including the Britis wold be built on crime. The argument against that is however widespread and fairly cogent: if you are given property you have an obligation to develop it, not just sit on it. That's the message Jesus delivered in the parable of the talents, and it's the way colonisers have justified their actions (when they felt any need to) pretty well throughout history. That the inheriotrs of property should be left to enjoy it and indeed use it to exploit others less fortunate, is of course a staple theme of the capitalist right. There is therefore abundant Marxist/socialist precedent too for the principle that unused and undeveloped property should be expropriated and used for the benefit of the greater community.

 

 

It is a rather common misconception that many people just sat on land and not used it or developed it. It is a concept based on a extreme narrowminded definition of land use and how to use natures resources. It also an expression of a concept that the colonised people lived in a state of timelessness where they never changed.

 

 
 


Edited by Carcharodon - 24 Nov 2010 at 15:48
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Nov 2010 at 15:51
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

 

You're so pre-programed you can't even see what's right there staring at you. There has been and is racism in every single country that ever existed. The scale varies somewhat, and the target races vary, that's all. Ascribing it to 'Western countries' is simply pure racist prejudiced propaganda. That in your case it is self-accusatory just makes the psychology more aberrant, that's all.

 

Well, to deny the systematic racism that grew in western culture is just a denial and a way to try to downplay its role in the shaping of the world of today.

 

 

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

And you can start studying some history instead of political diatribes.

 

Well, I did so, but it seems that it is you that have studied to much revisionist political diatribes and pro colonial apologetic propaganda.

Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Nov 2010 at 15:56
Unfortunately it is still common among some Brits, French, Belgians, Dutch and others to downplay their own atrocities in the contexts of slavery and colonialism while whining about the atrocities committed by the Nazis. Also it is common for them to still complain over their hardships during WWII German occupation (or in the war against the Germans) while forgetting to mention their own, often much worse treatment of their colonial subjects on other continents.

Edited by Carcharodon - 24 Nov 2010 at 16:01
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Nov 2010 at 16:00
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

'People from the British islands' is not the same thing as 'Britain' which implies authorisation at at least some givernmental level. Of course people from the British Isles have commited crimes, just as Swedes and Russians and Chinese and Japanese have committed crimes in foreign countries. That doesn't justify jumpiing to saying that Sweden, Russia, China or Japan committed those crimes.  

 

Well, sometimes it was sanctioned by state, other times atrocities were more local or commited by people outside the state. But still several such crimes was part of a mindset of imperialist thinking that was not only restricted to the state.

Vague generalisations again.
Quote

 

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

As for the Pequot, the situation is complicated by the fact that the various Indian tribes allied themselves with either the Dutch or the English n their conflict, and the causes of the Pequot War are very complex, when it comes to determining whoattacked whom. Moreover most of the Pequot appear to have been wiped out by smallpox (an earlier epidemic of which amone rival tribes had led to Pequot dominance) so that there only a few left when the war took place.

 

In the Pequot case the colonists reacted in an extreme way to alleged provcocations from the natives. Also the preceeding conflicts were a part of the colonial way to rule by dividing. Smallpox can have weakened the Pequots but still there was atrocities committed against them.

And by them. True the bigger side one, but what do you expect? Have you bothered to read about the outbreak of the war?

Quote  

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

With the Tasmans the process was much longer over more than a generation, and to a great exent due to various diseases, including venereal ones that led to much sterility among the aborigines. Moreover at least in the earlier period whites taking aboriginal women, willingly or unwillingly, as wives further led to depletion of the tribal population. Much of this was also accounted for by Tasmania's infestation with bushrangers, which was worse than in the other Australian colonies.

 

In the case of Tasmanians there were an ongoing process of atrocities and  violence that also was a part of a colonial process and a mindset that accepted the use of force to appropriate other peoples land and that saw these people as inferior.

True. Now show me how that results from the west African slave trade. After all, that's what you are claiming.

Quote  

But both Tasmanians and Pequots are just a couple of illustrative examples on atrocities committed by people from the British islands on the soil of other peoples lands on other continents. There are ofcourse many more.

 
We're not concerned here with 'people from the British islands'. So far you haven't produced an example that stands up to any scrutiny as an example of a deliberate British government practice.
Quote

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

However, if yo think that colonisation is a crime in itself, then of course all empires including the Britis wold be built on crime. The argument against that is however widespread and fairly cogent: if you are given property you have an obligation to develop it, not just sit on it. That's the message Jesus delivered in the parable of the talents, and it's the way colonisers have justified their actions (when they felt any need to) pretty well throughout history. That the inheriotrs of property should be left to enjoy it and indeed use it to exploit others less fortunate, is of course a staple theme of the capitalist right. There is therefore abundant Marxist/socialist precedent too for the principle that unused and undeveloped property should be expropriated and used for the benefit of the greater community.

 

 

It is a rather common misconception that many people just sat on land and not used it or developed it. It is a concept based on a extreme narrowminded definition of land use and how to use natures resources. It also an expression of a concept that the colonised people lived in a state of timelessness where they never changed.

It's not a misconception. Show me how the Tasmans who were dispossessed had been developing and improving their agriculture for instance. Was it less productive under the white setlers or more? It's not a narrow-minded definition at all. It's a statement that the world's resources should as far as possible be used for the benefit of humanity in general, not just for the benefit of those who happen to be born there.
 
Nor is it a concept that the colonised lived in a world that ever changed at all. Just one that only changed too slowly and could be improved upon.
 
Anyway if you're now down to claiming that all colonisation is a crime, then we are getting somewhere in blowing away the obfuscatory chaff.

 



Edited by gcle2003 - 24 Nov 2010 at 16:02
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Nov 2010 at 16:03
Instead of posting endless drivel Carch, I have a research project for you inspired by this comment from G.

Quote Only if you give dates, figures, motivations, and consider the role of the British [colonial governments], not just 'people from the British islands [colonial lands]' (sic).


I want to you create a table with the following headings across the top to list colonial atrocities:

Colonial Power; Date; Atrocity; Number of victims; Motive; Role of Colonialist Government

You can then proceed to validly review and opine on these atrocities with Nazi crimes with all data considered.


Edited by Zagros - 24 Nov 2010 at 16:24
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Nov 2010 at 16:18

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

And by them. True the bigger side one, but what do you expect? Have you bothered to read about the outbreak of the war?

 

 

Well, the Pequots had every right to defend themselves against intruders that did not respect their land rights and other rights. And when they in some case reacted upon provocation then they got massacred.  Is that what to expect in your mind?

 

 

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

We're not concerned here with 'people from the British islands'. So far you haven't produced an example that stands up to any scrutiny as an example of a deliberate British government practice.

 

The atrocities did take place in a context of British or English rule.

 

 

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

It's not a misconception. Sjow me how the Tasmans who were dispossessed

 

had been developing and improving their agriculture for instance. Was it less productive under the white setlers or more?

 

 

It seems that you also are under  the narrowminded misconception that land use necessarily means the kind of land use that the Europeans brought. Also you are under the misconception that land use necessarily means agriculture. Hunter gatherers also use the resources of a land in many different and often ingenous ways.

 

 

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

It's not a narrow-minded definition at all. It's a statement that the world's resources should as far as possible be used for the benefit of humanity in general, not just for the benefit of those who happen to be born there.

 

 

Well, many western enterprises have not succeeded so well, instead they have destroyed, and still destroy environment and resources in a way that is harmful for us all.

 

And the concept that resources are just there to be grabbed by anyone who has the power to do so is a rather disgusting example of a pro imperialistic mindset.

 

 



Edited by Carcharodon - 24 Nov 2010 at 16:20
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Nov 2010 at 16:19
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

Instead of posting endless drivel Carch, I have a research project for you inspired by this comment from G.

Quote Only if you give dates, figures, motivations, and consider the role of the [s]British[/s] [colonial governments], not just 'people from the [s]British islands[/s] [colonial lands]' (sic).


I want to you create a table with the following headings across the top to list colonial atrocities:

Colonial Power; Date; Atrocity; Number of victims; Motive; Role of Colonialist Government

You can then proceed to validly review and opine on these atrocities with Nazi crimes with all data considered.
 
Just read the available literature. Then I do not have to waste my time sitting here compiling endless lists.
 
But you could perhaps start looking on Congo in 1885 - 1908 where the head of a state used an enourmous territory to amass wealth while letting half of this territorys population succumb due to terror. And also after 1908, when it went over in control of the Belgian parliament, atrocities did not immediately end.


Edited by Carcharodon - 24 Nov 2010 at 16:28
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Nov 2010 at 16:26
Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:

Graham,

Give it up.  You are under assault by a flightless bird and an extinct sea creature.  LOL

Anglos are the devil; they are evil incarnate; as pinguin so eloquently puts it, it is "as simple as that."

No point you argue is going to matter to these people.

 
 
Support from this end as well for Pike's advice...the discussion has long left the realm of historical analysis (assuming naturally that something of the sort was pretended from the beginning) for the sake of agiprop twaddle and rhetorical hyperbole proclaiming dross factual gold! In all probability, the antagonsist here will soon begin carping on how the Pyonyang regime is simply defending itself against "imperialist" evils by bombarding civilians on an off-shore island!
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Nov 2010 at 16:28
I have a good understanding already of the facts but you confuse everything in your ramblings, so i am suggesting a method of structured thinking and expression for you otherwise your ramblings are worthless.
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Nov 2010 at 16:30
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

I have a good understanding already of the facts but you confuse everything in your ramblings, so i am suggesting a method of structured thinking and expression for you otherwise your ramblings are worthless.
 
Well it seems that everything you do not understand sounds like ramblings to you.
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Nov 2010 at 16:32
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

 
Support from this end as well for Pike's advice...the discussion has long left the realm of historical analysis (assuming naturally that something of the sort was pretended from the beginning)


Actually not when the creation of the topic in general intellectual discussion is considered.  It wasn't until moronic historical comparisons started to creep in that things went a bit off-piste.
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Nov 2010 at 16:42
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

I have a good understanding already of the facts but you confuse everything in your ramblings, so i am suggesting a method of structured thinking and expression for you otherwise your ramblings are worthless.
 
Well it seems that everything you do not understand sounds like ramblings to you.


Of course, everything you post outside of the trivial is rambling since your incohesive arguments do not have the solid analytical foundation demanded by their assured and imposing nature... This, I'm sorry to say, makes most of what you say the baseless ramblings of a narrow minded simpleton. 

Anywho, since my efforts have been in vain, I suggest you expose yourself to the tenets of academic analysis through some form of higher education.


Edited by Zagros - 24 Nov 2010 at 16:43
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Nov 2010 at 17:53
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

There are a whole stack of allegations of such things, that on inspection don't stand up. I note you can't think of any.
 
Give me a break. I bet it is you who should get better informed. Unbeliavable. The most racist nation on planet earth, up to the Third Reich, never commited a crime? Confused
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 56789 17>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.155 seconds.