World & Politics


World events, politics and whatever (especially whatever)
WARNING: Posts may contain offensive content and red wine
09/11/2001 WE REMEMBER

"Fear is the foundation of most governments." - John Adams

"Despite the constant negative press covfefe" - Donald Trump


Happy Columbus Day!

It seems in addition to the founding fathers, the trailblazing pioneer Christopher Columbus is also being attacked for supposedly "causing the genocide of the indigenous population of America".

It's almost as if some people actually believe the people who inhabited this land were a people who chilled around a fire, ate buffalo, and smoked some peyote. They don't factor in the constant state of war many tribes were in, practices of scalping and human sacrifice, etc.

But all that aside. Christopher Columbus did absolutely nothing wrong.

May his great discovery forever be remembered!

(Note : Vikings landed in America 500 years prior, but no permanent settlements)

settingsOptions
There are 112 Replies

Do I roll my eyes when I see people get butt hurt about colombus day. Yes.


But all that aside. Christopher Columbus did absolutely nothing wrong.

This is wrong in so many levels. fuck.

Posted October 9th by S.O.H.
S.O.H.
 

It's important to also note that the so called "indigenous people" migrated themselves across the Bering Strait. So why are white people attacked for taking land, when land has been taken by different groups of people all throughout history?

This is wrong in so many levels. fuck.

How so?

Edited October 9th by #85
#85

Being anti Columbus Day is simply anti whiteness masquerading as anti racism.

Posted October 9th by #85
#85

How so?


I can give you a list of sources and a plethora of information but you would just ignore it, call it fake news and call me, or any one else a butthurt snowflake.


But its been noted by several historians that Columbus ordered the enslavement of those people and ordered killing those who resisted. But hey if you want to be proud of a guy who ordered the killing of indigenous women and children go right ahead.

Personally I dont like individuals who have children and women mauled to death by dogs.

Posted October 9th by S.O.H.
S.O.H.
 

so italians are white?

Posted October 9th by EN
EN

anti whiteness

I thought the spanish and italians werent considered white though.

so italians are white?

^^^

Edited October 9th by S.O.H.
S.O.H.
 

Oh boy. Like SOH said this is a pretty nuanced issue.

Re: the snowflake thing, aren't you more likely to be a snowflake if you get triggered by anything that even vaguely seems to be "anti-white"?

Edited October 9th by Xhin
Xhin
 

But its been noted by several historians that Columbus ordered the enslavement of those people and ordered killing those who resisted. But hey if you want to be proud of a guy who ordered the killing of indigenous women and children go right ahead.

I must admit im not an expert on Columbus. Sources?

so italians are white?

Who said they weren't???????

Posted October 9th by #85
#85

"Christopher Columbus did absolutely nothing wrong."


"I must admit im not an expert on Columbus."




Posted October 9th by Count Dooku
Count Dooku

"I must admit im not an expert on Columbus."

So? Isn't admitting I might not know everything regarding him logical? People on average can't even name and locate all 50 states. Am I supposed to be ashamed I cant write a thesis worthy paper about Columbus off the top of my head?

Posted October 9th by #85
#85

Seems to me that you should have researched the man before praising him. Everything I said is pretty much common knowledge at this point.

The colonization of the America's is extremely interesting stuff. But once England gets involved I fall asleep lol.

Posted October 9th by S.o.h.
S.o.h.
 



Posted October 9th by ShadowFox08
ShadowFox08

I am more familiar with his circumnavigation. If you have some horrible historic event you can point me in the direction to, I'll check it out.

Posted October 9th by #85
#85

Christopher Columbus did absolutely nothing wrong.


columbus kidnapped a carib woman and gave her to a crew member to rape. is that ok in your book?


Posted October 9th by Brandy
Brandy

You could have easily googled his history before making this thread and figured out why people were so against it.

This would be like praising Hitler for all of his achievements and ignoring the mass killing of jews, poles, communist, catholics, gays, JW's, political prisoners etc and etc.

On his first day in the New World, he ordered six of the natives to be seized, writing in his journal that he believed they would be good servants. Throughout his years in the New World, Columbus enacted policies of forced labor in which natives were put to work for the sake of profits. Later, Columbus sent thousands of peaceful Taino “Indians” from the island of Hispaniola to Spain to be sold. Many died en route.

Those left behind were forced to search for gold in mines and work on plantations. Within 60 years after Columbus landed, only a few hundred of what may have been 250,000 Taino were left on their island.

As governor and viceroy of the Indies, Columbus imposed iron discipline on what is now the Caribbean country of Dominican Republic, according to documents discovered by Spanish historians in 2005. In response to native unrest and revolt, Columbus ordered a brutal crackdown in which many natives were killed; in an attempt to deter further rebellion, Columbus ordered their dismembered bodies to be paraded through the streets.

http://www.history.com/topics/exploration/columbus-controversy
While I wouldnt quote history.com or the history channel in a official paper this is decent coverage on some of the things he has done.

I would encourage you to read a few works by Francis Jennings I believe he covers this area extensively.

Bartolomé De Las Casas wrote extensively about the destruction of the Native people as well. I would encourage you to read some of his work too. I believe his book A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies easily accessible through google.

Note I dont consider him to be a saint. If I remember correctly he wanted the spaniards to use Africans as slaves and not the people of the Americas.

Edited October 9th by S.O.H.
S.O.H.
 

So many claims but so little sources

Posted October 9th by #85
#85

So many claims but so little sources

if it really interesteed you that much you would have found some by yourself. I am willing to bet that you wont change your mind on the matter even if we linked a billion sources.


Posted October 9th by S.O.H.
S.O.H.
 

columbus was trash, and so is this holiday

Posted October 9th by poptart!
poptart!
 

Columbus didn't discover anything.

Posted October 9th by Blazer72
Blazer72
 

I love Columbus! The later Harry Potter films are arguably superior as stand-alone movies, but I love the way the first two Columbus-directed films were almost exactly true to the books and had a fairy tale-like feel to them.


columbus was trash, and so is this holiday

But seriously, also this.


Posted October 9th by pacman
pacman
 

thrown into prison for being a tyrant.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/aug/07/books.spain

Posted October 9th by s.o.h.
s.o.h.
 

So half the world was eating human brains, but columbus is the ultimate evil because he was white and owned slaves. I think I see how it works now

Posted October 9th by #85
#85

hahaha half the world? i only know of one culture that definitely, factually ate human brains (of deceased relatives). and you know, i would prefer a wacky mourning ritual over the literal ownership and rape of other human beings.

owning another person is one of the most despicable things you could do. every slave owner throughout history, white or not, should have been hanged

Edited October 9th by poptart!
poptart!
 

you got some shitty heroes fam.

Posted October 9th by s.o.h.
s.o.h.
 

Edit

Edited October 9th by KnokkelMillennium
KnokkelMillennium

paying attention to what? there are people worth admiring. There is nothing wrong with it. But hey its cool if you dont want to.

Posted October 9th by S.O.H.
S.O.H.
 

Edit

Edited October 9th by KnokkelMillennium
KnokkelMillennium

john brown is my hero

Posted October 9th by poptart!
poptart!
 

I think far too many people have been brainwashed by modern culture into thinking that the concept of the "hero" necessitates moral justification.

I don't personally think that Columbus was a hero, though. How much actual violence did the man himself carry out in the name of pure conquest? Much less than I would find heroic, certainly.

Posted October 9th by nullfather
nullfather

(removing previous edit)

Edited October 9th by KnokkelMillennium
KnokkelMillennium


In an era where slavery existed legally on every continent, I don't judge based on moral standards of today. His accomplishments were clearly vast.

hahaha half the world? i only know of one culture that definitely, factually ate human brains (of deceased relatives). and you know, i would prefer a wacky mourning ritual over the literal ownership and rape of other human beings.

I was talking about cannibalism in general. People would be surprised at its prevalence in history and the recency of cultures abandoning it if they looked into it.

In response to native unrest and revolt, Columbus ordered a brutal crackdown in which many natives were killed; in an attempt to deter further rebellion, Columbus ordered their dismembered bodies to be paraded through the streets.

This actually makes me like him more actually. I am assuming a justified response to an already admitted revolt. What did that revolt entail? Seems conveniently left out.



Posted October 9th by #85
#85

"In an era where slavery existed legally on every continent, I don't judge based on moral standards of today. His accomplishments were clearly vast."

i figured you would disagree with moral relativism like most right wingers do

Posted October 9th by poptart!
poptart!
 

"People would be surprised at its prevalence in history and the recency of cultures abandoning it if they looked into it."

i don't doubt that it happened often, but the prevalence of cannibalism seems to be vastly overstated

"This actually makes me like him more actually. I am assuming a justified response to an already admitted revolt. What did that revolt entail? Seems conveniently left out."

revolt against a slave-owning tyrant is justified

Posted October 9th by poptart!
poptart!
 

Defining historical figures purely in the context of their attitude towards minorities is just the most small-minded, moronic, petty and pointless load of crap.

Columbus achieved more than any of you lot would in a hundred-thousand lifetimes.

I really do despair at the utter state of our society. Are we really going to spend the next millennium obsessing over race? It sure looks that way right now.

Edited October 9th by Smiling Apple
Smiling Apple

i don't doubt that it happened often, but the prevalence of cannibalism seems to be vastly overstated

An example I can offer is the Polynesians. Hotbed of cannibalism in the 19th century.

Posted October 9th by #85
#85

Defining historical figures purely in the context of their attitude towards minorities is just the most small-minded, moronic, petty and pointless load of crap.

I agree. It basically just amounts to virtue signaling. Unfortunately its destructive because actual accomplished people are being demonized, leading people to respect and admire figures who are actually sick individuals.

I really do despair at the utter state of our society. Are we really going to spend
the next millennium obsessing over race? It sure looks that way right now.

They are going to play identity politics no matter what.

Posted October 9th by #85
#85

Are we really going to spend the next millennium obsessing over race


Hard not to when you study history and see the ways it has factored into the development of our country and society. Also kind of hard not to when you have a lot of people saying, "This is our experience in this country," and then another group of people saying, "OH my god, give a rest already! There isn't a problem! Shut up!" Seriously: racial red-lining *is* still a thing. The War on Drugs was specifically designed to target leftists and black people, and is *still* in effect today (as admitted by members of the Nixon administration). Are we really expected to believe that race is irrelevant as it pertains to public policy and private practice?


Columbus achieved more than any of you lot would in a hundred-thousand lifetimes.


I guess... I generally don't find that a particularly compelling argument on the grounds that A) I don't care and B) I'd rather be a no one who harmed nobody than a well-known historical figure who committed some heinous acts himself and gets a pass just because of "the times."

I'm generally a fan of nuance. I don't have any problem calling out historical figures for the horrible shit they did. It's not wrong to chastise the Founding Fathers for owning slaves while at the very same time were fighting for liberty. It is wrong now. It was wrong then. And even in historical context, there was growing dissent with the moral acceptability of slavery even in the 1770s, '80s, and '90s, so it isn't like they knew it was wrong then. (Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe all disliked slavery themselves, and were all perfectly aware of the irony of fighting for liberty while denying others of theirs. They weren't stupid. Jefferson even made an attempt to outlaw slavery as a member of the Virginian Congress, and he himself signed the federal ban on importation of slaves in 1808. Washington grew such a large quantity of slaves in part because he refuse to sell off slaves that would break up families. You don't do that if you don't see them as humans, and you don't see slaves as humans and still think, "This is morally acceptable." Especially as you yourself fight for "liberty" and "freedom.")

I'm not sure why if I point out that these people had slaves, or even some pretty shitty behaviors (Monroe, for example, joined in vocalizing an armed rebellion if Jefferson lost the election of 1800, which is kind of fucked up - and Jefferson backed people calling John Adams a transvestite in 1796), I'm suddenly "villainizing' them. Historical figures are quite complex, and I think it does us a complete disservice to mask the bad and *only* focus on the good. I don't see how making these people seem like saints is any better than making them sound like the devil.

But I also wonder how much people really know about the context of their time. I think we tend to look at olden days as being inherently different moral periods. Slavery in the United States is a good example of this argument driving me nuts, where people act like slavery wasn't that big a deal or that most people were fine with it 200 years ago. When you really dive into American history, though, the context of the time isn't all that different. Slavery was increasingly viewed as an immoral practice. And indeed, even our founding Presidents who owned slaves admitted in their own letters their disgust with the practice; that they wished they could do something about it, but felt constrained by either the demands of their plantations and poor economics of the time, or by state politics (there's a reason the slavery question got specifically tabled at the Constitutional Convention - that was a huge controversial topic for the explicit purpose of people believing it was wrong.)

So for me, I think it is disingenuous to take only the good and toss out the bad, just as I think it is the same to toss out the good and only look at the bad. It's a disservice to the recording of our history. And, as it pertains to the United States, I actually find it a bit "un-American" to glorify *any* individual to this sort of "god-like" status. (I tend to be a bit like curmudgeon-y John Adams in that regard: I see value in having personal heroes, but I think it runs counter-intuitive to start elevating anyone to this point of what effectively functions as a quasi-monarch in social status. I love Washington as much as the next guy, but he'd definitely be shocked to see his face on currency, and he didn't exactly fight a King so he could be treated like one. Jefferson *definitely* didn't.)

And when it comes to relations with natives, it gets even more complex. We tend to lump all native tribes into one umbrella group. When you dive into it, those relationships varied depending on the tribe, and the context. British colonists in Pennsylvania had generally cultivated more peaceful relationships with local tribes, for example, while Virginian colonists tended to see more violence in part due generally forced acquisition of territory. Given the different tribes in the area, and that Pennsylvanians weren't looking to expand the same way that Virginians were, you can easily find very different relations with natives. None of this, of course, to make mention of the different cultures from tribe to tribe - people tend to talk about indigenous peoples as if they all had some form of shared culture.

But that "history is nuanced and complex" thing works both ways. You don't really get to attack people for oversimplifying a figure like Christopher Columbus, then turn around and oversimplify various native tribes, too. You also don't get to say, "historical context matters" to excuse the behavior of "European conquerors" and then make it a point of effectively calling natives savages in one sweeping umbrella.


Posted October 9th by Jet Presto
Jet Presto

That response got away from me a li'l bit. Sorry. (I find one of the biggest reasons I am drawn to history is the complexity of it. I *hate* how much everyone wants to oversimplify it. And so I read more about it to get a more complete picture, which everyone seems actively intent on avoiding.)

Anyway, so some stuff I don't expect meaningful discourse out of, but will respond to for prosperity anyway:


so italians are white?

Who said they weren't???????


Interestingly, other white people for a while. There was a time when you had groups of people - like Italians or the Irish - that were not considered "white" by more "classical" white people, like British, French, Dutch, or Germanic peoples. It's actually kind of funny to see how exclusive being "white" was, once upon a time.


They are going to play identity politics no matter what.


You are literally constantly talking about protecting "whiteness" in this country. How is that any less "identity politics"? And how is the "good ol' Southern Confederate heritage" thing not "identity politics."




Re: the snowflake thing, aren't you more likely to be a snowflake if you get triggered by anything that even vaguely seems to be "anti-white"


I always have to chuckle at the "special snowflake" insult coming from people so fucking outraged that a few pro-athletes are performing some act of peaceful protest during the national anthem that they have to rage for weeks and then boycott the entire league....

Posted October 9th by Jet Presto
Jet Presto

Sorry what ever "contributions" Columbus made are heavily outweighed by the atrocities he carried out.

You don't see me praising Hitler for his interest highway system which was deemed revutionary for it's time and helped influence our interstate highway here in the U.S.

Posted October 9th by S.o.h.
S.o.h.
 

amazing post, jet. do you have a column or a blog? if not, you should.

Edited October 9th by poptart!
poptart!
 

Sorry what ever "contributions" Columbus made are heavily outweighed by the atrocities he carried out.


That is fair. I generally don't see much "good" from Columbus either, myself. (I also don't really understand why it's an American holiday either. His impact on the United States is extremely limited in any capacity. There are no shortage of others who could be celebrated. In my home town, we just celebrated Casimir Pulaski, who is generally regarded as the father of the American cavalry, and who gave his life fighting for American independence despite being from Poland. Seems to me that Casimir Pulaski merits more celebrations in America than Christopher Columbus. Or what about Lafayette, who was so beloved in America for so long that he was granted honorary citizenship? Or others, like Nathaniel Greene? Why exactly am I as an American supposed to care that much about Christopher Columbus other than that he was one of the people that accidentally found new territories in the same hemisphere as the United States? I mean, here in the whole "free and independent, liberty-loving United States," shouldn't we be rejecting prominent figures in colonialism and imperialism?)

So you can definitely count me in the category of those feeling Columbus does not deserve a holiday, and that we should give it to an American historical figure much more deserving.

There is no denying the impact of Columbus, though.

Posted October 9th by Jet Presto
Jet Presto

@poptart

I mean, who *doesn't* have a blog? I'm not inclined to share it openly on this forum, but I can send you a message linking to it.

Posted October 9th by Jet Presto
Jet Presto

He made no notable to contributions out side of finding new markets for the Spanish empire and even the the empire did not manage them well.

85 only brings this nonsense up because of the day. Every other day of the year he doesn't care about some the slimy Italian.

Edited October 9th by S.o.h.
S.o.h.
 

haha i don't blame you. but yeah, that would be awesome (if you don't mind). thanks!

Edited October 9th by poptart!
poptart!
 

It's also worth noting that English fisherman were fishing and trading in the North Eastern region of North America a good century before Columbus "discovered" the new world and there are a number of historians who argue that the Chinese found the new world years before the Vikings.

Posted October 9th by S.o.h.
S.o.h.
 

Who said they weren't????

From my experience those on storm front and the alt right don't consider the Spanish or italians to be real whites. Even early Nazi propaganda stated that Italians specifically were not white/true aryans/Nordic. This sentiment would come out in full force after Italy surrendered to the allies.

Posted October 9th by S.o.h.
S.o.h.
 

I'll give Jet a proper counter tomorrow when I can dig up some sources to site. He is definitely doing some "selective reporting" of the events that portray things in a light that portrays the Federalists in something other than idolizers of the British Crown, the same people we fought to free ourselves from!

85 only brings this nonsense up because of the day. Every other day of the year he doesn't care about some the slimy Italian.

From my experience those on storm front and the alt right don't consider the Spanish or italians to be real whites. Even early Nazi propaganda stated that Italians specifically were not white/true aryans/Nordic. This sentiment would come out in full force after Italy surrendered to the allies.


I take a pan European view in defining "whiteness", although their are obviously several schools of thought. This means that any European, from West to East, North to South, is "white".

Columbus is recognized because he is the first widely acknowledged European on the continent of the Americas. Don't forget the first national anthem was "Hail Columbia" , and then theres the district of Columbia, him being an important figure has always been. And its anti white to reverse it.

Posted October 9th by #85
#85

And its anti white to reverse it.

no its not anti white. Its far from it.

And hes only an "important" figure because they heavily gloss over all the crap he and the rest of the Europeans did.

This is evident by the fact that you knew very little about the man outside of what our 3rd grade teachers taught us.

Would it be anti white to replace his "holiday" with one for De las Casas? Or another Jesuit who helped and aided the native people?



Edited October 9th by S.O.H.
S.O.H.
 

no its not anti white. Its far from it.

We should not be seeking the erasure of European history from memory (some would certainly like to see that).

Posted October 9th by #85
#85

We should not be seeking the erasure of European history from memory (some would certainly like to see that).


changing the name of a holiday is not erasing European history you dolt. If anything the whole indigenous peoples day movement is shedding light to heavily ignored/ desensitized/ topics of european history. There are proven accounts from that time era of what Columbus did there is no need to celebrate any of that.



Posted October 10th by S.O.H.
S.O.H.
 

I am all in favor of celebrating Columbus day if it meant telling the masses what he did. Are you okay with that? or is telling the truth also erasing European history?

and before you come up with your "but the natives were cannibals" stupidity I implore you to study about the Taino people who were initially wiped out by the Europeans. They were far from cannibals.

Not that cannibalism did not exist during this time in that area it did in some of the islands but if I remember correctly cannibalism was also a thing in europe during this time. Up until the 17th century if I remember correctly. (IIRC King Charles the 2nd mixed his drinks with human bones?)

Edited October 10th by S.O.H.
S.O.H.
 

i'm not saying to throw out and forget about european history. we should all learn about ALL of european history, especially the atrocities committed by colonialist scum like columbus. it's disingenuous to gloss over his crimes

EDIT: lol SOH beat me to it

Edited October 10th by poptart!
poptart!
 

I think the bigger issue here is that 85 is having a difficult time accepting that whites/ europeans were not the saviors he was taught they were. If thats the case. Get woke nigga!

I can point you to a couple of books on the matter if you like. Im by no means an expert but I do have some resources that can help you find your way.

Posted October 10th by S.O.H.
S.O.H.
 

the cannibalism thing was also blown out of proportion by the colonialists as justification for their crimes.

Posted October 10th by poptart!
poptart!
 

I thought the major justification was the fact that they were not christian. And practiced the religion of heathens?

Not that converting to Christianity stopped them from being systematically wiped out.

Edited October 10th by S.O.H.
S.O.H.
 

Morally, the European people of the 18th Century were hundreds of years ahead of many other people. Yet in school everything is presented as evil white man coming in, taking and killing and you are acting like its all glossed over? out the Muslim conquests

I would argue quite the opposite is shoved down our throats. Little attention is given to the gigantic sacrifices Americans, instead focusing on atrocities and wrongings.



Posted October 10th by #85
#85

I would argue quite the opposite is shoved down our throats. Little attention is given to the gigantic sacrifices Americans, instead focusing on atrocities and wrongings.


what

Morally, the European people of the 18th Century were hundreds of years ahead of many other people. Yet in school everything is presented as evil white man coming in, taking and killing and you are acting like its all glossed over? out the Muslim conquests

if it was presented like this you would have known Columbus was not a good man. And it is heavily glossed over in K-12 education settings.

Also I doubt that the Europeans were more morally advanced... and why are you talking about the 18th century? the conquest of the Americas happened 2 Centuries before that... From the late 15th century up until the end of the 16th century/ early 17th century.



Edited October 10th by S.O.H.
S.O.H.
 

Was George Washington a good man? He owned slaves.

In my K-12, far too much time was spent on Trial of Tears, Jim Crow, Holocaust, and other events that can be blamed on the white man.

I would say the entire colonial American Era gets glossed over.

Posted October 10th by #85
#85

Is your topic about Columbus or colonial united states?

Are you going to address the points about Columbus?

I am no longer sure what the point of your thread is. Do you want to talk about the colonization of the Americas or early colonial U.S.? Both are vastly different time periods.


To be honest if I call him a bad man you will just flip your shit.

As far as Washington being a good man I don't know . If whites were as morally as superior as you claimed they were they wouldn't have had slaves. If I'm not mistaken he treated his slaves well. Far better than how the Spanish treated their slaves at the start of colonization. He was far more imperfect than anything else. He requested his slaves be freed upon his death and I've been told they mourned for him greatly. Not that justifies slavery or what he did.

I guess he was a decent man. It makes me wonder if he kept his slaves as a necessity to encourage the southern states to join in on the revolution.

Posted October 10th by S.o.h.
S.o.h.
 

He is definitely doing some "selective reporting" of the events that portray things in a light that portrays the Federalists in something other than idolizers of the British Crown


Federalists certainly had a more favorable view of Britain for various reasons (chief among them economic), but the fact that you are tipping your hand by essentially billing Federalists as simply "idolizers of the British Crown" tells me exactly how much "selective reporting" you are about to do. Your preface misrepresents history so badly that I don't think you really need to bother trying to find nonsense "sources" (likely just pulling from political rivals of the time period).


In my K-12, far too much time was spent on Trial of Tears, Jim Crow, Holocaust, and other events that can be blamed on the white man.


You'll have to excuse me if I sincerely doubt "much" time was spent on the Trail of Tears or Jim Crow. Or if I'm inclined to imagine that "far too much time" means a chapter or two. And if you're honest with yourself for five seconds, how much time do you think was spent talking about the greatness of white men in American history in comparison?



Was George Washington a good man? He owned slaves.


Yes. Historical figures are complex, as are individuals in general. As I have said, I think we take the bad with the good. Washington, to my mind, was a good man without a clean conscience. He, like anyone else, was human.


He requested his slaves be freed upon his death and I've been told they mourned for him greatly


To be clear: he requested many be freed upon Martha Washington's death, not his own.


It makes me wonder if he kept his slaves as a necessity to encourage the southern states to join in on the revolution.


He kept his slaves because he saw no other alternative. For a period of time, he kept acquiring new land, which needed tending to. His tracks were so large, and with the mixture of poor crop choices (like tobacco) and frequent droughts, he could not imagine being able to run the plantations without slaves. Ironically, he acquired so many slaves that a sizeable portion of his crops went to feeding the hundreds of slaves, and a good chunk of money he made went to housing, feeding, and provide medical care when injured or sick.

Though privately, he frequently confessed to close friends his disdain of slavery (and how unprofitable it had turned out to be for him), and his sincere hope that it would die out on its own (he had died just before the cotton gin really exploded and really revitalized slavery, which *might* have ended slowly otherwise). But he agreed to not to do anything to impede it, knowing it would make an already rocky union more tenuous. He also rejected plans from some of his top generals during the Revolutionary War to recruit even freed black men into the military, since most Southerners feared the message that would send to slaves. Largely, he kept his slaves on his own plantation because he saw no other alternatives. (He, like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and the marquis de Lafayette all ultimately believed slaves should all have been freed, but given their own country somewhere in Africa.)

Posted October 10th by Jet Presto
Jet Presto

Morally, the European people of the 18th Century were hundreds of years ahead of many other people. Yet in school everything is presented as evil white man coming in, taking and killing and you are acting like its all glossed over? out the Muslim conquests

lol at being morally ahead. White colonialism is taking natives land, forcing them abandon their culture and convert to Christianity, yet still being treated like second class citizens. You remember the video I posted about natives being separated from their family and being put into charter schools and being forced to abandon their culture and embrace christianity, right?

Posted October 10th by ShadowFox08
ShadowFox08

Just going to take a few seconds to point out that people who bring up Hitler never bring up Stalin or Mao. Alright, now carry on.

Posted October 10th by Kohlrak
Kohlrak

I'm also going to take the time to point out that slavery was first abolished by white people, despite being practiced by everyone in the world (the bible even has rules on how to treat slaves). That said, there are still slave markets in this world, some of which are quite public and legal in the middle east.

Posted October 10th by Kohlrak
Kohlrak

Just going to take a few seconds to point out that people who bring up Hitler never bring up Stalin or Mao

...Are what?

Edited October 10th by KnokkelMillennium
KnokkelMillennium

Not entirely sure why I would have to bring up Stalin or Mao when Hitler's atrocities are far more well known, documented and easier to access.



Posted October 10th by S.o.h.
S.o.h.
 

I am no longer sure what the point of your thread is. Do you want to talk about the colonization of the Americas or early colonial U.S.? Both are vastly different time periods.

I'm interested in both, prehaps a split might be in order. I already addressed I'm not bothered by his so called "iron ruling".

Federalists certainly had a more favorable view of Britain for various reasons (chief among them economic), but the fact that you are tipping your hand by essentially billing Federalists as simply "idolizers of the British Crown" tells me exactly how much "selective reporting" you are about to do. Your preface misrepresents history so badly that I don't think you really need to bother trying to find nonsense "sources" (likely just pulling from political rivals of the time period).

Aren't you just pulling from Federalist sources? There was a time in my more moderate days when I would have described myself as a Jeffersonian. So yes, my views are coming from an Anti Federalist perspective. Trade between New England and Britain is one thing, but when the same people advocate a big government reminiscent of a monarchy, I think questions start to arise.

In terms of a hotbed of loyalism to the British Crown just before and during the onset of the Revolution, it was in New York and New England. The British did not even attempt to tap into the Southern Loyalist market until later during the war. Gee its almost like one region of the US preferred big government where another preferred smaller. MAYBE the civil war was about more than slavery after all??? Use some critical thinking.

And if you're honest with yourself for five seconds, how much time do you think was spent talking about the greatness of white men in American history in comparison?

Are you being honest? I find it hard to believe that a Massachusetts liberal was taught about how great our founders were. I think the achievements of our founders were portrayed through the lens of someone portraying it in a bad light. And I am talking about my own personal experience in a heavily liberal public school system.

See shadowfox's reply : "White colonialism is taking natives land, forcing them abandon their culture and convert to Christianity, yet still being treated like second class citizens"

That is how our history is being portrayed, and its absolutely disgusting.


Yes. Historical figures are complex, as are individuals in general. As I have said, I think we take the bad with the good. Washington, to my mind, was a good man without a clean conscience. He, like anyone else, was human.

I bet you'd get kicked out of a socialist meeting for praising a white man like that! I'd go a bit farther than this, but I agree.


Posted October 10th by #85
#85

Being anti Columbus Day is simply anti whiteness masquerading as anti racism

You have a rare gift for getting triggered by things that haven't even been said in a thread yet.

Posted October 10th by Tusk
Tusk
 

It's absolutely disgusting

Just because it's disgusting doesn't mean it's not true.

You may not be bothered by the atrocities he committed but many people are. Shoot as of yesterday you knew very little about the man. Like I said I'm all for keeping the day if we use it as a way to educate the masses.

Posted October 10th by S.o.h.
S.o.h.
 

Early colonial u.s. interest

I'm not interested in that topic. I find that aspect of history (well u.s. history in general) to be extremely dull. Good luck with the discussion!

Posted October 10th by S.o.h.
S.o.h.
 

You may not be bothered by the atrocities he committed but many people are. Shoot as of yesterday you knew very little about the man. Like I said I'm all for keeping the day if we use it as a way to educate the masses.

I am confident there is not one person who is well read on Columbus here. It had been many years since I had looked into him. So what? I am sure you didn't know either and googled an event to blow up. Truth is, people are in general tremendously ignorant of early American history. Both good and bad. You and I like history and have both taken history classes at the college level. But even we don't know everything, just more than average.

Posted October 10th by #85
#85

Except I actually did know and even gave you a list of books you can read to catch yourself up on the subject.

You admitted in this very thread that you knew nothing of the man you preached.

I'm a little bit more well versed than you on the subject as my education didn't stop after a few junior college classes. I'm by no means the authority on Columbus or the colonization of the America's but I know more than enough at this point.

Check out De Las Casas if you honestly care about the subject. I can recommend you more of the books and articles that I've read too if that helps

Posted October 10th by S.o.h.
S.o.h.
 

I never said I "knew nothing", I conceded when it comes to his personal affairs I may not be that well versed, so I will do some more indepth research before I can have an in depth conversation.

Currently checking out a Columbus documentary on Youtube.

Posted October 10th by #85
#85

Spoiler alert, most people in history don't come out in a good light if you arbitrarily project modern social mores on them.

There is zero merit in doing this of course, which is why any historian worth their salt doesn't bother.

But I've said this all before.

there are a number of historians who argue that the Chinese found the new world years before the Vikings.

Chinese contact and other East Asian contact pre-Columbus are not mainstream theories and are largely pseudohistory.

Vikings and Columbus are your two events here, unless convincing evidence that suggests otherwise surfaces.

From my experience those on storm front and the alt right don't consider the Spanish or italians to be real whites. Even early Nazi propaganda stated that Italians specifically were not white/true aryans/Nordic. This sentiment would come out in full force after Italy surrendered to the allies.

If memory serves, some of it is down to the argument that Saracen conquest of parts of southern Italy 'corrupted' Italians.

However, genetic studies demonstrated that the Italian haplogroup has only been minutely altered by the Southwest Asian haplogroup, and only really on any level in Sicily. Italians really are European, and so armchair geneticists/racefinder generals can rest easy.

Edited October 11th by Arch
Arch
 

"Spoiler alert, most people in history don't come out in a good light if you arbitrarily project modern social mores on them"

ah yes, modern social mores like "slavery is wrong." i'm sure the slaves were totally fine with it back then

"There is zero merit in doing this of course, which is why any historian worth their salt doesn't bother."

of course it's not going to help you study history. but when it comes to whether or not we should be celebrating someone in 2017, i think maybe historians should shut up.

what's the cutoff for this, by the way? you wouldn't flinch if i called someone a piece of shit for idolizong hitler or stalin or pol pot

Posted October 11th by poptart!
poptart!
 

ah yes, modern social mores like "slavery is wrong." i'm sure the slaves were totally fine with it back then

They probably weren't fine with it, no. You'd be hard pressed to argue that slavery wasn't seen by pretty much all established civilisations as morally justified and socially acceptable for a solid few millenia though.

of course it's not going to help you study history. but when it comes to whether or not we should be celebrating someone in 2017, i think maybe historians should shut up.

Whether or not we lionise someone is a different question (Columbus day is pretty silly as aggrandised hero worship). My point was any atrocities committed that are certainly not acceptable by today's standards don't diminish historical events or achievements.

And the only way to avoid the warping effects of social memory and nostalgia is to have historians around. The only reason why you have any nuance on the subject is because of them. So no, they shouldn't be silenced simply because grief merchants demand it so.

what's the cutoff for this, by the way? you wouldn't flinch if i called someone a piece of shit for idolizong hitler or stalin or pol pot

You won't find one, presentism being a scale, in the same way that what constitutes "modernity" as a historical period is simply a question of one's contemporaneousness. You're not the first to pose this problem in historiography.

History is not a hard science, but we can make a convicing case that states the difference between Hitler and Columbus was that the atrocities of the former were considered henious crimes by the standards of the time, whereas the latter's on the whole weren't (even if the 1930s, let alone the 1490s, is still a different time and context to present day). We can also argue that the Nuremburg trials are the direct antecedent of current 2017 international law - whereas the Inter caetera isn't - so it's not particularly surprising that Hitler and other twentieth century authoritarians have more weight and relevance today than Age of Discovery figures.

Edited October 11th by Arch
Arch
 

alright, thanks for the great response, arch. i'll mull it over.

Posted October 11th by poptart!
poptart!
 

We often forget that slavery - and generally being a dick to everyone - was the norm for most of human history.

The abolition of slavery, by the British, was an aberration. And yet we are made to believe we were the bad guys.

Western historical figures are spat on by ignorant philistines for holding views that no person living in that time would have given a second-thought to.

Western civilization has more to be proud of than any other civilization, and I'm sick of being told otherwise by people who seem to enjoy wallowing in self-hatred.

Posted October 11th by Smiling Apple
Smiling Apple


We often forget that slavery - and generally being a dick to everyone - was the norm for most of human history.

The abolition of slavery, by the British, was an aberration. And yet we are made to believe we were the bad guys.

Western historical figures are spat on by ignorant philistines for holding views that no person living in that time would have given a second-thought to.

Western civilization has more to be proud of than any other civilization, and I'm sick of being told otherwise by people who seem to enjoy wallowing in self-hatred.


The one topic i can't engage due to reply frequency being high when i'm sleeping, and you say exactly what i wanted to say many posts ago. The amount of empirical evidence for your claims, as well, makes one wonder why this is so unknown. Like, logically, at the chance of sounding racist: most slaves were irish, as they were the poorest white people, and black slaves were expensive (modern "black culture" is actually old irish culture, as evidenced by newspaper articles of that time period). The idea of white people running around the jungles of Africa kidnapping random black people who did not get severe sunburns (let's just forget about the fact that if this were the case, it were most likely to be the irish doing the running and capturing) is laughable, yet this is the very thing depicted in modern shows surrounding the topic. The fear of racism is so ingrained into our culture that the few things that are true about race are ignored. Somehow scientific data has become racist and evil, yet we're improving ourselves in the world, somehow. I honestly don't get how we're doing anyone any favors with this mentality.

EDIT: And the amount of agency we fail to give women and people of other races because they "need help" and we're racist if we fail to recognize it. I feel we're even more racist being politically correct.

Edited October 11th by Kohlrak
Kohlrak

is laughable, yet this is the very thing depicted in modern shows surrounding the topic.

what modern shows

Posted October 11th by 7
7
 

The most recent example, i was told, was roots, but, to be fair, I have not actually watched the show myself.

Posted October 11th by Kohlrak
Kohlrak

The most recent example, i was told, was roots, but, to be fair, I have not actually watched the show myself.


I have only seen the original show. Wayyyyy back my Junior year of highschool. But if the new remake is the same and if I remember it correctly. Kunta Kente was taken by another African tribe and sold to white slave traffickers. And thats where the story begins.

And there have been written accounts of both whites hunting down Africans and them being sold against their will to whites by enemy tribes. (iirc they were usually prisoners of war but that would change as slave markets opened up)

I dont think any modern show or movie covers the Atlantic slave trade. There are a couple that follow the lives of 2nd/3rd generation slaves though.

Posted October 11th by s.o.h.
s.o.h.
 

The biggest injustice is that no one covers the middle-eastern slave trade. It still exists today, and the horrors exceed those seen in Uncle Tom's Cabin.

Posted October 11th by Kohlrak
Kohlrak

Be the change you want to see in the world.

Posted October 11th by S.o.h.
S.o.h.
 

If only people would take that to heart. Or, rather, if only people would want to change the world. Seems the most who do want to change the world are focused on doing it with force.

Posted October 11th by Kohlrak
Kohlrak

"for holding views that no person living in that time would have given a second-thought to."

"Western civilization has more to be proud of than any other civilization,"

come on, man, you can't just pick and choose when you decide to apply relativism

Posted October 12th by poptart!
poptart!
 

come on, man, you can't just pick and choose when you decide to apply relativism


Goody, we're finally at this level. I can say that western civilization has done better than others before it. I can say it has handled things better than other concurrent civilizations. The important thing is, i'm asking to give it a break. I'm not saying it's good or ideal in any shape or form, and that's where the distinction is. It has been crappy, and it gets crappier by the year. It needs to be judged, but it's unfair to judge it alone. The road to improvement is paved by acknowledging both successes and failures, adopting the successes and improving upon the failures, so hopefully failures are not repeated. This, most importantly, also means speaking honestly about the failures, including the painful bits.

Posted October 12th by Kohlrak
Kohlrak

"I can say that western civilization has done better than others before it. I can say it has handled things better than other concurrent civilizations."

yes, you can say that, but i'm asking for consistency: if someone is going to complain about making moral judgements about historical figures from a modern perspective, it's hypocritical to make eurocentric judgements about other cultures.

also, i'm obviously not a moral relativist (i think that it's used to excuse despicable shit like FGM), but lumping cultures together into a binary of "western civilization vs. literally everything else" strikes me as a bit ridiculous lol.

"The important thing is, i'm asking to give it a break. I'm not saying it's good or ideal in any shape or form, and that's where the distinction is."

it seems like every time someone criticizes "western civilization" on this forum, a right wing chorus asks to give it a break. i'd like to be able to criticize the U.S. or europe without having to stipulate "it sure is great, though" every time.

"It has been crappy, and it gets crappier by the year."

now you're the one being hard on the west. there's obviously a "two steps forward, one step back" sort of thing going on, but we're lucky to be alive in such peaceful, tolerant times.

"It needs to be judged, but it's unfair to judge it alone. The road to improvement is paved by acknowledging both successes and failures, adopting the successes and improving upon the failures, so hopefully failures are not repeated. This, most importantly, also means speaking honestly about the failures, including the painful bits."

yeah, no arguments from me here

Posted October 12th by poptart!
poptart!
 

yes, you can say that, but i'm asking for consistency: if someone is going to complain about making moral judgements about historical figures from a modern perspective, it's hypocritical to make eurocentric judgements about other cultures.


Without an absolute standard to judge against, you're going to have to pick one of the existing benchmarks.


also, i'm obviously not a moral relativist (i think that it's used to excuse despicable shit like FGM), but lumping cultures together into a binary of "western civilization vs. literally everything else" strikes me as a bit ridiculous lol.


We could go into specifics, but that'd be a waste of time. It'd be easier to point out examples contrary to my statement, since they're fewer, thus easier to enumerate, right?

it seems like every time someone criticizes "western civilization" on this forum, a right wing chorus asks to give it a break. i'd like to be able to criticize the U.S. or europe without having to stipulate "it sure is great, though" every time.


Well, given that it never gets a break elsewhere, what do you expect? With the same level of frustration you have conceding that it doesn't completely suck, we have frustration from hearing nothing but complaints about it.

now you're the one being hard on the west. there's obviously a "two steps forward, one step back" sort of thing going on, but we're lucky to be alive in such peaceful, tolerant times.


I agree. I think it's fair to be hard on the west (and necessary), but maintaining perspective is important. It's great to reach for utopia and be critical of pitfalls, but there is a certain level of danger when we fail to admit accomplishments, especially if the accomplishments are either fading or condemned.


Posted October 12th by Kohlrak
Kohlrak

"Without an absolute standard to judge against, you're going to have to pick one of the existing benchmarks."

exactly! so, from the benchmark of modern society, i'm going to say that christopher columbus was a cruel tyrant.

"We could go into specifics, but that'd be a waste of time. It'd be easier to point out examples contrary to my statement, since they're fewer, thus easier to enumerate, right?"

i agree that it would be easier, but i don't think we should oversimplify. like, even in the U.S. there are so many different cultures in different parts of the country (and, having lived in both rural red areas and left-leaning blue cities, i'll let you guess where i, as a degenerate, experienced more hate and disgust [and that's not to say that i wouldn't be fucking beheaded in other countries]).

"Well, given that it never gets a break elsewhere, what do you expect? With the same level of frustration you have conceding that it doesn't completely suck, we have frustration from hearing nothing but complaints about it."

haha, it's funny how every time i complain about #leftwingproblems, i find out that the right feels the same way.

(also, i'm starting to get tired, so i think i'm done with this for the night. good talk, though)

Edited October 12th by poptart!
poptart!
 

exactly! so, from the benchmark of modern society, i'm going to say that christopher columbus was a cruel tyrant.


Which i have no problem saying. Harder to judge society as a whole, though.

i agree that it would be easier, but i don't think we should oversimplify. like, even in the U.S. there are so many different cultures in different parts of the country (and, having lived in both rural red areas and left-leaning blue cities, i'll let you guess where i, as a degenerate, experienced more hate and disgust [and that's not to say that i wouldn't be fucking beheaded in other countries]).


Oversimplification is not a problem with comparatives, unless there's significant overlap.

haha, it's funny how every time i complain about #leftwingproblems, i find out that the right feels the same way.


There's a psychological thing going on, too, and it's no secret the mainstream media (even conservative) adds to this intentionally. A great example is "gay marriage." On the left, they play rights, hospital visits, etc. On the right, we point out that government is stepping into religion with this, nature, whatever. The real issue isn't whether or not gay people should be able to get married, but the interconnection of religion with the state. The state can't respect the religious doctrines, yet demands to stick their hands into it. Most people agree that Christian bakers shouldn't be harassed by the government with this issue (and just let the free market evaluate their business with bad reviews from homosexual couples), but this where conservatives are angry. The left right now is cozy with government (which it doesn't have to be), which then allows them to use it as a rally call to the left. And to the conservatives, it's the gay people calling out to the government to bully us, not the government incentivising the calls for help. Depending on how you frame these narratives, you can make them way more divisive than they should be.

Posted October 13th by Kohlrak
Kohlrak

From my experience those on storm front and the alt right don't consider the Spanish or italians to be real whites. Even early Nazi propaganda stated that Italians specifically were not white/true aryans/Nordic.

Fake News straight from the Lügenpresse.

The 19th century definition of Aryan included all of Europe.

You didn't need to be pure Nordic to acquire a Ahnenpaß

Only very small faction was what we would call "nordicist"


Posted October 13th by #85
#85

For quite some time we have lionized, without question, many Western historical figures whose impact on our society cannot always be regarded with fondness by some of the groups living in it.

Given the different experiences different peoples have had with Western society, I hope some of us may be permitted to make legitimate critiques of these figures without being put in the "ignorant philistine" camp. Far from being revisionism, many of these critiques have been long overdue, and can offer us a more complete picture of the figures in question.

Western society can be said to have had further global reach and power projection than any other culture hitherto. It has worked more widespread changes on both the human and natural environment, and in shorter time, than any other I can think of. It also has a remarkable capacity for self-correction and moral reflection. In a sense, as Rome was to Europe, so was Europe to the World.

That said, what does it mean to have more to be proud of than any other civilization? How do you quantify that?

Couldn't I say that Eastern civilization has the most to be proud of for having the oldest continuing civilization (the Chinese), for being the most technically innovative until the Modern Age, for having complex systems of religious and moral thought that pre-date the Bible and are still in use, for possessing riches that so enticed the West as to compel it to engage in an Age of Discovery, and for not only surviving colonialism much better than did people on other continents but for being able to repurpose the tools, political philosophies, and cultural disruption of the colonizers so well, that now East Asia is (again) among the wealthiest, most populous, most dynamic places on the planet?

Being neither white nor European, I think I can safely avoid the idea that I might be engaging in self-hate by asking this.

Posted October 14th by Just Because
Just Because
 

For quite some time we have lionized, without question, many Western historical figures whose impact on our society cannot always be regarded with fondness by some of the groups living in it.

Then they can GTFO is how I feel. It is a big injustice that these people demonizing the same people who gave them a system that they are directly benefiting from.

Given the different experiences different peoples have had with Western society, I hope some of us may be permitted to make legitimate critiques of these figures without being put in the "ignorant philistine" camp. Far from being revisionism, many of these critiques have been long overdue, and can offer us a more complete picture of the figures in question.

There is no need to go so out of the way to focus on perceived faults of some of the greatest men in history.

Western society can be said to have had further global reach and power projection than any other culture hitherto

Imo, any other group, having had the same resources, would have done the same thing.

Couldn't I say that Eastern civilization has the most to be proud of for having the oldest continuing civilization (the Chinese), for being the most technically innovative until the Modern Age, for having complex systems of religious and moral thought that pre-date the Bible and are still in use, for possessing riches that so enticed the West as to compel it to engage in an Age of Discovery, and for not only surviving colonialism much better than did people on other continents but for being able to repurpose the tools, political philosophies, and cultural disruption of the colonizers so well, that now East Asia is (again) among the wealthiest, most populous, most dynamic places on the planet?

The accomplishments pale in comparison to those of Europeans.

Posted October 14th by #85
#85

Let's be real here 85 knows close to nothing about the accomplishments made by east asian civilizations.

And he's the only person who was triggered in this thread.

Posted October 14th by A.o.g.
A.o.g.
 

I mean, gunpowders cool and all. So is circumnavigation of the entire world.

Posted October 14th by #85
#85

This land is as much mine as it is yours. Why do reactionaries love telling people to GTFO if they criticize some aspect of the country they live in?

Firstly, that is stupid because criticism is part of that societal self-reflection I was talking about. Secondly, unless you're in imminent danger, you can't just simply walk out of your country nowadays without expecting legal trouble. Thirdly, the benefits you're referring to were not applied equally, and often the survival of marginalized groups has depended on self-reliance more than on the gains bestowed by some gracious Western benefactor.

One doesn't need to "go out of their way" to make these criticism since any multi-faceted assessment of these figures would naturally include them.

Also, it is not a given that any society with the West's resources would have done what the West did. China, for example, had all the tools to engage in more effective power projection. Bigger ships. Education. Man power. Gunpowder. Centralized government. Zheng He proved that a fleet of Chinese ships (bigger and better equipped than anything Columbus possessed) could tour the world at will. The reason they often didn't is because the Chinese saw little reason to go anywhere. When you see yourself as the center of the world, and when you have every indication that you are the wealthiest, most powerful, most urbanized, most important civilization that ever existed, you don't feel the need to go looking for new worlds.

Europeans, on the other hand, sought out new worlds because they sensed in themselves a comparative lack of resources that they could fill through exploration. If you look at some early modern literature of the time you see that some European thinkers harbored something of a malaise about their world, an uncomfortable and sad sense that the older civilizations to the east possessed something morally and materially that Christendom lacked. This unease is part of what drove them to wander the world, and intellectually it provided some of the urgency that later fed the changes made by the Enlightenment.

This is also a warning for why the West should avoid arrogance now. The moment you start thinking you're the greatest civilization ever, history throws you a curve-ball. Because the Chinese imperial court was steeped in an arrogant and self-centered world view, they were unwilling to make the changes necessary to ward off the "barbarian" Europeans. Japan avoided direct colonization of their homeland precisely because they were able to see which way the wind was blowing, and they were able to adapt themselves in time.

China saw "Western learning" as a corrupting set of ideas espoused by a band of pale, seafaring raiders who seemed more interested in plunder than in paying respects to the harmonious, heavenly-ordained, centralized imperial society. So they shunned it. And they paid for it.

In any case, it is inaccurate to say their accomplishments paled in comparison to that of Europeans. They had a lot of what Europe had, they just didn't export it like Europe did. Additionally, not all Europeans have developed at the same pace. China has put people in space. Many European countries have not. Japan was beginning to master industrialization by the 19th century. Some parts of Europe didn't get there until the 20th. Many Asian countries have higher quality of life indicators than a lot of European countries.

Given this reality, I find your claims bombastic and premature. You would do well to approach the issue with a fuller understanding of the nuance it possesses.

Posted October 14th by Just Because
Just Because
 

Your posts are the only thing worth reading on this site, Just Because. I have stayed away because this site is too right-wing for me, but your posts are excellent.

Posted October 15th by Jubei
Jubei
 

Sure you two arent the same person?

Posted October 15th by #85
#85

Null could probably confirm they're not the same if he gets around to it. Also you're the only one who seems to think something about Just Because is off, even SA seems to respect em despite disagreeing.

Edited October 15th by KnokkelMillennium
KnokkelMillennium

VPNS dude

Posted October 15th by #85
#85

I know for a fact they aren't the same person then. How about that.

Posted October 15th by KnokkelMillennium
KnokkelMillennium

This land is as much mine as it is yours. Why do reactionaries love telling people to GTFO if they criticize some aspect of the country they live in?


You bite the hand that feeds you, when you likely could not survive without it.

Firstly, that is stupid because criticism is part of that societal self-reflection I was talking about. Secondly, unless you're in imminent danger, you can't just simply walk out of your country nowadays without expecting legal trouble. Thirdly, the benefits you're referring to were not applied equally, and often the survival of marginalized groups has depended on self-reliance more than on the gains bestowed by some gracious Western benefactor.


You're right. The people who build the benefits don't reap them, and the martinalized groups have to defend on self-reliance. The problem is, the marginalized group is the white people. We've gotten to the point that we point to "white priviledge" and suggest now that the people who built the civilizatio need to keep building it for those who refuse to contribute. I remember even being told in school that, because i'm white, I'm personally responsible for ensuring that i pay for slavery. Thank you very much, but looking at my family history, it's very likely that my ancestors were slaves, themselves, who paid to excape Ireland.

Also, it is not a given that any society with the West's resources would have done what the West did. China, for example, had all the tools to engage in more effective power projection. Bigger ships. Education. Man power. Gunpowder. Centralized government. Zheng He proved that a fleet of Chinese ships (bigger and better equipped than anything Columbus possessed) could tour the world at will. The reason they often didn't is because the Chinese saw little reason to go anywhere. When you see yourself as the center of the world, and when you have every indication that you are the wealthiest, most powerful, most urbanized, most important civilization that ever existed, you don't feel the need to go looking for new worlds.


Throughout history, western civilziation has been more focused on science and discovery in general. So, we discovered there was more land (wasn't the original purpose to see if we could reach china faster and easier that way?), then realized that we found a large piece of land filled to the brim with resources and people just sitting on those resources who were very much "behind."

Europeans, on the other hand, sought out new worlds because they sensed in themselves a comparative lack of resources that they could fill through exploration. If you look at some early modern literature of the time you see that some European thinkers harbored something of a malaise about their world, an uncomfortable and sad sense that the older civilizations to the east possessed something morally and materially that Christendom lacked. This unease is part of what drove them to wander the world, and intellectually it provided some of the urgency that later fed the changes made by the Enlightenment.


Mind putting your money where your mouth is? I'd love to see this. Even still, that doesn't mean it was the dominant feature of the time. The most important contribution the western world has given us is the holy viewpoint of science. Science was what lead us to find the "New World," and ultimately to expand into it, whether it was the americas or the african jungles: both were relative unknowns. It's always been about expanding knowledge.

This is also a warning for why the West should avoid arrogance now. The moment you start thinking you're the greatest civilization ever, history throws you a curve-ball. Because the Chinese imperial court was steeped in an arrogant and self-centered world view, they were unwilling to make the changes necessary to ward off the "barbarian" Europeans. Japan avoided direct colonization of their homeland precisely because they were able to see which way the wind was blowing, and they were able to adapt themselves in time.


Notice that we didn't invade china, which seems to be going contrary to the narrative.

China saw "Western learning" as a corrupting set of ideas espoused by a band of pale, seafaring raiders who seemed more interested in plunder than in paying respects to the harmonious, heavenly-ordained, centralized imperial society. So they shunned it. And they paid for it.


weird. Reading your post, one would think that you're saying the same thing. Presumably, then, you're also making the same mistake, even though you should know better.

In any case, it is inaccurate to say their accomplishments paled in comparison to that of Europeans. They had a lot of what Europe had, they just didn't export it like Europe did.


Actually, China was very involved with trade, which is why Japanese looks and sounds the way it does today. Not only the writing, but a large contributer to Japanese phonology also came from chinese, where old japanese resembles modern cambodian in pronunciation and morphology.

Additionally, not all Europeans have developed at the same pace. China has put people in space. Many European countries have not. Japan was beginning to master industrialization by the 19th century. Some parts of Europe didn't get there until the 20th. Many Asian countries have higher quality of life indicators than a lot of European countries.


Japan adopted the imperialism of western culture, but were alot less successful. Just like china, japan has a long history of multi-generational civil wars (Techmo-Koei has made a few game series capitalising on these periods), which the west wasn't really into at the same time. In fact, Japan was known to buy western muskets, which alot of missionaries from the west used to try to get a foothold into japan and christianize it (which, i agree, was totally the wrong way to go about it, for both practical and moral reasons). And we also often see that improvments of culture and technology come in the face of necessity, and when japan wasn't fighting over it's own land, it was trying to take Okinawa, China (Yes, Japan even went to try to invade China many times throughout history), etc.

Given this reality, I find your claims bombastic and premature. You would do well to approach the issue with a fuller understanding of the nuance it possesses.


I'd say the same thing to you, if it actually held any weight.

Sure you two arent the same person?


Null could probably confirm they're not the same if he gets around to it. Also you're the only one who seems to think something about Just Because is off, even SA seems to respect em despite disagreeing.


Why is it that we care so much? What weight or gravity does it add the the conversation, either way?

Posted October 15th by Kohlrak
Kohlrak

Why is it that we care so much? What weight or gravity does it add the the conversation, either way?

Paranoia has been around this community for a while, and I have been the center of it like several times now so it's only natural. And, incidentally that has arguably led me to also be paranoid about random names. This is a case where I know otherwise though.

But ya, you're right in that it's just a quick excuse to invalidate someone- which is exactly why it should be clear that they aren't the same person.

Edited October 15th by KnokkelMillennium
KnokkelMillennium

t's always been about expanding knowledge.


I laughed. Its always been about expanding markets and gaining more money lol.

Posted October 15th by S.O.H.
S.O.H.
 

Paranoia has been around this community for a while, and I have been the center of it like several times now so it's only natural. And, incidentally that has arguably led me to also be paranoid about random names. This is a case where I know otherwise though.


You gotta see through the illusions, bud. How many times have I been victim to being "ganged up upon" by one person. I've learned that the only solution is to be willing to take on a crowd. What's fun and useful is, fighting multiple opponents in a fist fight is not only easier than it seems, but fighting multiple people in online debates can often strengthen your position. Don't ever under-estimate the power you gain when someone barters in illusions (and/or the occult).

But ya, you're right in that it's just a quick excuse to invalidate someone- which is exactly why it should be clear that they aren't the same person.


And how quickly your argument falls if you invest your argument and logic on your opponent being someone, only to find out later that they're not and you totally just fumbled your entire position.

Posted October 15th by Kohlrak
Kohlrak

You might be interested to know, Jubei, that your posts have served something of a similar function for me.

On that note, I should say that I am not Jubei. They seem to be a fine person in my eyes though and I've never had a problem with them. Rather, I was shown this site by KnokkelMillennium and ended up becoming far more involved than I ever originally intended to become.

Anyway, to address Kohlrak:

I am aware of who feeds me, and it is not Western benefactors to whom I am beholden, but rather a large extended family that spans several continents. In any case, non-Europeans do indeed have the agency to survive without the intervention of Europeans.

As for putting my money where my mouth is, I was referring to a whole host of literature that I've read over the years, largely (but not exclusively) in college, and that now sits in a pile on my desk. It would take forever to go find quotes and pages, but in broad terms I was thinking of, in particular:

Francis Bacon, the urgency coursing through his utopian literature as he laments that society could be ordered along better lines, and the acknowledgements he gives China;

Augustine of Hippo (not "early modern" by any means, I know, but he influenced many early modern thinkers) and his intense need to dissect the causes of the Western Roman collapse and the vigor with which he tried to analyze other world systems in the hopes of finding new ways of ordering society;

Matteo Ricci and the astonishment with which he noted that China was a thriving, orderly society despite their ignorance of Christ, and the moral implications this fact held.

And although he was not Eastern in the sense of being Far East, but rather near East, Ibn al-Haytham should be noted for giving Europe its first taste of the concept of peer review. Many Renaissance scholars read his work and adapted his methods in order to carry out their own falsifiable experiments. They also walked away with the notion that there were important things that could be learned or acquired outside Europe that they would do well not to ignore. This early respect for the East started to disappear as the imperial age dawned and Europe built a larger base of knowledge for itself.

Then you have all the tales of wealth and riches that reached the popular European imagination from the East and served as fuel for explorers.

Although it is not often apparent to us today, there was a moral crisis going on in Europe on the eve of the Age of Discovery. When you are a thinking man sitting amidst the ruins of one of the greatest empires in the world, you naturally ask yourself what happened to cause the fall. Did we do something wrong? Did we lose our way? Did we forget our morals? Polemicists often used the East as a screen to project their own ideas about what they thought the West was missing.

I don't know where you are getting the idea that I am rejecting Western learning or making appeals that we need to become as sclerotic and rigid as the Chinese imperial government, so I won't address that.

Also, China did indeed influence the societies around it. When I said they didn't export their ways and culture, I was referring to the fact that they didn't go forth into the wider world in an attempt to spread it with global imperialism. Japan adapted from China in the sense that a little sister adapts from an older sibling. Not at the point of a gun.

And finally, the most fatally incorrect assertion you have made is the idea that we did not invade China. This has been too often forgotten now, but America actually did. Not unilaterally, of course, but before, during, and after the Boxer Rebellion, America had troops in China and they did clash with and kill Chinese, as well as engage in outright looting. America also had gunboat patrols on Chinese rivers in the years after. America also engaged in a largely forgotten military intervention in Korea in 1871 that tainted relations for years.

Lest anyone get the wrong idea, I am not saying this in order to make anyone feel white guilt. But there is no doubt that the people who take the stance that 85 does seem inclined not to think about any of this.

I am not the best person. I can be accused of many awful things. But I certainly cannot be accused of not bringing nuance to this issue.

Posted October 16th by Just Because
Just Because
 

I am aware of who feeds me, and it is not Western benefactors to whom I am beholden, but rather a large extended family that spans several continents. In any case, non-Europeans do indeed have the agency to survive without the intervention of Europeans.


I wish we could accept this point within the west: enough of title IX, and the rest, already. As long as we keep trying to give minorities a leg up, we're still holding them back. We can never see each other as equals as long as we're not treated as equals.

As for putting my money where my mouth is, I was referring to a whole host of literature that I've read over the years, largely (but not exclusively) in college, and that now sits in a pile on my desk. It would take forever to go find quotes and pages, but in broad terms I was thinking of, in particular:


I hope I don't have to point out that your source being an institution that has become oddly self-loathing sort of puts this into perspective. Remember, the architects that put these things into motion were not the same people who wrote what you read, so it seems strange to assume they had the same mentality, though i'll give you that it still holds weight, regardless, since the doers may have been familiar with the thinkers.

Francis Bacon, the urgency coursing through his utopian literature as he laments that society could be ordered along better lines, and the acknowledgements he gives China;


Not familiar, so i can't comment without examples.

Augustine of Hippo (not "early modern" by any means, I know, but he influenced many early modern thinkers) and his intense need to dissect the causes of the Western Roman collapse and the vigor with which he tried to analyze other world systems in the hopes of finding new ways of ordering society;


This seems fairly reasonable, given that Rome did collapse.

Matteo Ricci and the astonishment with which he noted that China was a thriving, orderly society despite their ignorance of Christ, and the moral implications this fact held.


I'm not sure what moral implications that would have, as religion has a fairly decent ordering effect on people, regardless of whether or not the doctrines are true. The religions that stand today are the ones that stood the test of time. I wouldn't dare to say that any one of them, outside of islam, is flawed to a degree that they can't stand logic and reason, else they've would've fallen apart, just like the ones that have. I'm sure you'll find that, just as Ghandi noted, the major religions of today are so similar, the differences are hardly worth quibbling over. Not to mention that the foundation of western culture was spreading to land outside of the west by this time. The religions were similar enough to adopt the same ideas (science, logic, philosophy, etc) for similar reasons.

And although he was not Eastern in the sense of being Far East, but rather near East, Ibn al-Haytham should be noted for giving Europe its first taste of the concept of peer review. Many Renaissance scholars read his work and adapted his methods in order to carry out their own falsifiable experiments. They also walked away with the notion that there were important things that could be learned or acquired outside Europe that they would do well not to ignore. This early respect for the East started to disappear as the imperial age dawned and Europe built a larger base of knowledge for itself.


I don't recall much in the regard for disrespect of the east. For example, was it not the original goal of Columbus to go west hoping they could find a safer route to the east? Does anyone really think he was trying to find new land? A bit risky to face falling off the world to talk to people that you don't respect. It's this courage that has us respecting him at all.

Then you have all the tales of wealth and riches that reached the popular European imagination from the East and served as fuel for explorers.


This has happened in every culture that expands. China even fell victim, afaik, which is why it got so interested in Japan and surrounding areas.

Although it is not often apparent to us today, there was a moral crisis going on in Europe on the eve of the Age of Discovery. When you are a thinking man sitting amidst the ruins of one of the greatest empires in the world, you naturally ask yourself what happened to cause the fall. Did we do something wrong? Did we lose our way? Did we forget our morals? Polemicists often used the East as a screen to project their own ideas about what they thought the West was missing.


Right, which is no surprise, then that we went searching for the knowledge. And not all the west was obsessed with Rome, as who took over? I think alot more of all this had to do with the fact that we had our own in-fighting just as the east did. And, everyone (east included) had a habit of trying to hide that infighting was a thing. It's alot like the facebook depression people have, today, from looking at all their friends with perfect instagram photos, when they have to take 20 to look as good, but then totally don't recognize that everyone else took 20, too, but didn't post them. It wasn't really until World War I that we finally realized that maybe we should strive really hard to be at peace.

Also, China did indeed influence the societies around it. When I said they didn't export their ways and culture, I was referring to the fact that they didn't go forth into the wider world in an attempt to spread it with global imperialism. Japan adapted from China in the sense that a little sister adapts from an older sibling. Not at the point of a gun.


They sure seem imperialist, today. And Japan was definitely imperialist. I think they even tried invading china at one point. I think the main reason china wasn't trying to expand, was because they had so much internal trouble for so long, they were afraid it would backfire on them. Kudos to them for foreseeing colonists would fight back and try to start their own nations.

And finally, the most fatally incorrect assertion you have made is the idea that we did not invade China. This has been too often forgotten now, but America actually did. Not unilaterally, of course, but before, during, and after the Boxer Rebellion, America had troops in China and they did clash with and kill Chinese, as well as engage in outright looting. America also had gunboat patrols on Chinese rivers in the years after. America also engaged in a largely forgotten military intervention in Korea in 1871 that tainted relations for years.


Context is the killer in this one. Why were the troops there? I'll give you the looting, but, given all the leadup, would you suggest that the troops were unjustified? If you let in foreigners then fail to protect them from your own people, it begins to look alot like your country is now unstable. If a country were to attack a foreign country's embassy residing in their own country, for example, it would be considered an act of war. It's like me inviting you to my house, then killing you saying I was defending myself from you. It didn't start with the chinese government saying "we don't want you here, anymore." It started with people killing each other.

Lest anyone get the wrong idea, I am not saying this in order to make anyone feel white guilt. But there is no doubt that the people who take the stance that 85 does seem inclined not to think about any of this.


I assure you that vietnam is the greatest example of western cockiness backfiring. A bigger issue is that, western heros, who do heroic and/or important things, are not permitted to have faults. If you have a fault, apparently you're not a hero, and we shouldn't celebrate your accomplishments, because doing so apparently means we're also celebrating the faults, rather than pointing out the heroism despite the faults. I think this is more or less what #85 is trying to get across. And in doing so, the things that show western culture positively are the parts we're meant to celebrate, we're basically villifying our positive accomplishments, as well.


Posted October 16th by Kohlrak
Kohlrak

To elaborate somewhat on what I meant in regards to Matteo Ricci, he was obviously a good pious Christian who was brought up believing that salvation lies in Christ. As such, the best society is one ordered on Christly principles and everything else, even if nominally good and moral, is still at least a little inferior to proper Christianity.

This was why in Dante's Divine Comedy, Dante places heroes who were pagans and non-Christians in the first Circle of Hell. Here the story describes classical European heroes, pagans, Muslim heroes, and others. Because they did not (or could not) accept Christ they obviously couldn't go to paradise, but they were good enough as human beings that they didn't deserve the lower circles of Hell where the real suffering happened.

So when Matteo Ricci is faced with China for the first time he is dealing with a society that is not at all Christian, and yet in many regards it was more orderly and advanced than what he had known. In his spiritual cosmography this should have been impossible. China could have been good and virtuous sure, but not AS good and virtuous as the ideal Christian kingdom. And certainly not better.

Encounters like this naturally caused scholars to ask themselves if Christianity was necessarily the best way to order society, and if so, just how far was the Kingdom of Man (as established in Europe) straying from the Kingdom of God, and what changes would be required to set things right. Facing China raised in scholars the sort of insecurity that forces one to reassess their own principles.

I would also take major issue with the idea that the Chinese really "invited" the Americans. That foreigners were involved with internal Chinese affairs to the degree that they were was a consequence of military defeats and economic coercion in the form of protracted wars, treaties, concessions, drug smuggling, and extraterritorial demands of a sort that, if they were imposed on us, we would rightly regard as an outright foreign invasion.

Just because the British did most of the legwork for the Americans doesn't mean that Americans were not invaders. And as we saw with their actions in Japan and Korea, America was not above taking unilateral military action in the region anyway.

I'm not of the sort who thinks we should tear down the Washington Monument or Nelson's Column. A lot of Western figures engaged in practices I find abhorrent, but there are enough redeemable features for me to appreciate them and to recognize why we need to study them. Washington and Nelson possessed certain qualities and fought for things that were bigger than just their vices.

But there are some figures who aren't so redeemable, and this is why we need to periodically reassess who our heroes are. Columbus was canonized as an American "hero" largely because he was Italian, and large-scale Italian immigration in the 19th century necessitated finding a figure that the new immigrants would identify with. (Conservatives call this "pandering" when it happens today.)

Confederate "heroes" were also nowhere near as intellectually and morally important to the Western canon as were the Founders and their works. Those who have pretended that the Confederates were as important tended to be from those generations who came up 60 to 100 years after the Civil War.

Who we lionize as our heroes is something that matters. If tomorrow, Britain suddenly started worshipping Hitler and putting up monuments to him, we would be rightfully concerned about where British values were headed, and citing Hitler's very real importance and impact on Western society does not excuse us from properly taking stock of what those values are.

Reflexively rejecting all Western heroes and all Western learning really makes no sense. But in an attempt to counter those who do so, I can't countenance those who jump to the other end and uncritically worship the West as the greatest thing that ever happened without taking stock of the great body of human endeavor and motivations that exists alongside, outside, and in tandem with it.


Posted October 16th by Just Because
Just Because
 

To elaborate somewhat on what I meant in regards to Matteo Ricci, he was obviously a good pious Christian who was brought up believing that salvation lies in Christ. As such, the best society is one ordered on Christly principles and everything else, even if nominally good and moral, is still at least a little inferior to proper Christianity.


So, another believer in christianity but not the bible. It's been shown numerous times in the bible that material success can exist without being a good christian. But, hey, bible probably wasn't available to him.

This was why in Dante's Divine Comedy, Dante places heroes who were pagans and non-Christians in the first Circle of Hell. Here the story describes classical European heroes, pagans, Muslim heroes, and others. Because they did not (or could not) accept Christ they obviously couldn't go to paradise, but they were good enough as human beings that they didn't deserve the lower circles of Hell where the real suffering happened.


I'm curious where Abraham, Noah, and pretty much everyone pre-Christ would have went, then.

So when Matteo Ricci is faced with China for the first time he is dealing with a society that is not at all Christian, and yet in many regards it was more orderly and advanced than what he had known. In his spiritual cosmography this should have been impossible. China could have been good and virtuous sure, but not AS good and virtuous as the ideal Christian kingdom. And certainly not better.


If by going by his logic, then if Christianity is better, he should have had no issues finding faults outside of the material successes, and also seeing those faults had no impact on china's success, right?

Encounters like this naturally caused scholars to ask themselves if Christianity was necessarily the best way to order society, and if so, just how far was the Kingdom of Man (as established in Europe) straying from the Kingdom of God, and what changes would be required to set things right. Facing China raised in scholars the sort of insecurity that forces one to reassess their own principles.


Which isn't bad, at all.

I would also take major issue with the idea that the Chinese really "invited" the Americans. That foreigners were involved with internal Chinese affairs to the degree that they were was a consequence of military defeats and economic coercion in the form of protracted wars, treaties, concessions, drug smuggling, and extraterritorial demands of a sort that, if they were imposed on us, we would rightly regard as an outright foreign invasion.


So we found the weakness in Chinese culture: it didn't have a self-preservation instinct to prevent the creeping power of a foreign culture from within it's own society. Oddly enough, the west seems to have lost it's own, as well.

Just because the British did most of the legwork for the Americans doesn't mean that Americans were not invaders. And as we saw with their actions in Japan and Korea, America was not above taking unilateral military action in the region anyway.


If you mean the Korean war that resulted in a split country, that was all about the US keeping control of it's interest in Japan, especially since it was a proxy war. As for Japan and WWII, that was all about protecting our own interest in holding Japan down because we were upset about pearl harbor.

I'm not of the sort who thinks we should tear down the Washington Monument or Nelson's Column. A lot of Western figures engaged in practices I find abhorrent, but there are enough redeemable features for me to appreciate them and to recognize why we need to study them. Washington and Nelson possessed certain qualities and fought for things that were bigger than just their vices.


Then when we see people triggered over Washington's birthday, I hope to see you on my side.

But there are some figures who aren't so redeemable, and this is why we need to periodically reassess who our heroes are. Columbus was canonized as an American "hero" largely because he was Italian, and large-scale Italian immigration in the 19th century necessitated finding a figure that the new immigrants would identify with. (Conservatives call this "pandering" when it happens today.)


I still value the courage he had, as it was within the realm of reason at the time that instead of finding china or india as expected, he would find sea monsters and dragons. His faith in science itself, he sailed. Yes, I know that there were already theories that earth wasn't flat, we still had no proof of it back then, yet we did have stories of sea monsters at the edge of the world.

Confederate "heroes" were also nowhere near as intellectually and morally important to the Western canon as were the Founders and their works. Those who have pretended that the Confederates were as important tended to be from those generations who came up 60 to 100 years after the Civil War.


Lee and Jackson, though. To be fair, Patton is revered for the same reason as Jackson, while Lee, I don't see as someone to be overly honered, I see no reason to hate, either. Lee, to me, is more of an interesting character who shows loyalty, but I don't see his position nearly as risky.

Who we lionize as our heroes is something that matters. If tomorrow, Britain suddenly started worshipping Hitler and putting up monuments to him, we would be rightfully concerned about where British values were headed, and citing Hitler's very real importance and impact on Western society does not excuse us from properly taking stock of what those values are.


Absolutely. But time honored heros are time honored heros because they could be honored over long periods of time.

Reflexively rejecting all Western heroes and all Western learning really makes no sense. But in an attempt to counter those who do so, I can't countenance those who jump to the other end and uncritically worship the West as the greatest thing that ever happened without taking stock of the great body of human endeavor and motivations that exists alongside, outside, and in tandem with it.


I agree to a point. There is much to inquire about societies and cultures which may have fallen apart and be lost to time purely as the result of natural disasters. Even today, we're still finding evidence of long lost cultures, who's languages and literatures were never described or mentioned before. The thing to remember about the west is, it's the society that we're invested in. It is the society that took what was before and brought us to where we are now. It is a society that seems quite capable of growing even further. It's the best society we've got in written history, and we can say this because it is built upon all the great societies before it, as well as it's own accomplishments. Over time, a new civilization shall form, and, presumably, it'll be even greater. For now, we should give what is it's proper respect.

Posted October 16th by Kohlrak
Kohlrak

Those pre-Christ biblical figures were in the First Circle of Hell until Jesus personally came to meet them and break them out. I am left feeling that that was both pretty cool of him as well as way too convenient. Sort of like a fanfiction that you feel couldn't possibly be canon, but is irresistible for daring to be that bold.

The fact that the Opium Wars and Boxer Rebellion happened at all shows there was a self-preservation instinct in China. But for too long they underestimated a people who were too far away and deemed too "inferior" to warrant concern. In any case, America's reaction to 9/11 shows that such an instinct isn't dead here. We just need to apply it ways that don't drag us into senseless quagmires or paroxysms of paranoia.

In regards to America's unilateral imperial actions in Korea I am not talking about the Korean War (which was hardly unilateral anyway). I am talking about the interventions long before that. The ones I've already mentioned.

Some time before you reappeared, I mentioned Washington in another thread and why I don't anticipate there will be major "triggering" over him, and why I would not be triggered over him. As Bismarck and Hitler are in the German canon, so too are Washington and Jefferson Davis in the American. In each pair, the first built up their respective countries and fought for redeemable and inclusive ideals. The latter of each pair were terribly destructive and really left behind little that was intellectually or morally stimulating.

Anyway, in all this, I hope I haven't given the impression that it was bad for Western figures to use the East as a point of comparison, or that it was bad, in itself, to try to surpass the East.

Posted October 16th by Just Because
Just Because
 

One more note of clarification, the unilateral American actions I was referring to in regards to Japan were those carried out in that country in the 19th century starting with Commodore Perry.

I'm not talking about the Second World War; that was a wholly different beast.

Posted October 16th by Just Because
Just Because
 


Those pre-Christ biblical figures were in the First Circle of Hell until Jesus personally came to meet them and break them out. I am left feeling that that was both pretty cool of him as well as way too convenient. Sort of like a fanfiction that you feel couldn't possibly be canon, but is irresistible for daring to be that bold.


This is why i avoid fanfiction. And the amount of people who write fanfiction, only to be accomplished authors later on. Fifty shades, i'm looking at you, for being an extra special example.

But yes, very convenient. Why would they get special help from Jesus but not others?

The fact that the Opium Wars and Boxer Rebellion happened at all shows there was a self-preservation instinct in China. But for too long they underestimated a people who were too far away and deemed too "inferior" to warrant concern. In any case, America's reaction to 9/11 shows that such an instinct isn't dead here. We just need to apply it ways that don't drag us into senseless quagmires or paroxysms of paranoia.


Most certainly if we're afraid of repeating china's mistakes, then we need to not underestimate the middle-east, either.

In regards to America's unilateral imperial actions in Korea I am not talking about the Korean War (which was hardly unilateral anyway). I am talking about the interventions long before that. The ones I've already mentioned.


Yeah, i'm not really familiar with them. Do they follow a similar pattern, though?

Some time before you reappeared, I mentioned Washington in another thread and why I don't anticipate there will be major "triggering" over him, and why I would not be triggered over him. As Bismarck and Hitler are in the German canon, so too are Washington and Jefferson Davis in the American. In each pair, the first built up their respective countries and fought for redeemable and inclusive ideals. The latter of each pair were terribly destructive and really left behind little that was intellectually or morally stimulating.


To be absolutely fair, Hitler apparently left behind modern medicine. To be absolutely fair, hitler did alot of good, but it does come down to whether or not the ends justify the means. I like how we pick on him, but Stalin starved so many more people than Hitler ever did, and Mao, well, let's just say that hitler isn't the worst of his peers at a quality perspective, either. Weirdest part yet, I don't even think he had anything against the people his regime killed, for the stated reasons at least. But, on the other hand, i would've been much happier if he stuck to painting.

Anyway, in all this, I hope I haven't given the impression that it was bad for Western figures to use the East as a point of comparison, or that it was bad, in itself, to try to surpass the East.


That is a given. To say that would be to condemn the east.

One more note of clarification, the unilateral American actions I was referring to in regards to Japan were those carried out in that country in the 19th century starting with Commodore Perry.

I'm not talking about the Second World War; that was a wholly different beast.


Ok, yeah, that was hardly a positive scenario. Though the context of that one's kind of interesting.

Posted October 16th by Kohlrak
Kohlrak
Reply to: Snowflakes triggered by Columbus Day

Enter your message here


Site Rules | Complaints Process | Register Complaint Facebook Page
GTX0 © 2009-2017 Xhin GameTalk © 1999-2008 lives on