RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'.

RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

mnottertail -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/28/2013 6:21:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: Edwynn: Egypt most certainly qualifies in this instance. We could quibble about Britain not sending a bunch of real estate agents to Egypt to entice British citizens to move there, but there were certainly enough Englanders and Australians and other Commonwealthers invested in the country to impose both political and economic rule to qualify. So if Egypt sold its shares in the Suez project to Britain, then we send in troops to protect the canal, that makes Egypt a colony..... [8\|] We can't go anywhere on this, it seems to me, unless we distinguish between 'colonialism' and 'neocolonialism'. Egypt might - I say might - be an early example of the latter. Now, as it happens, I will defer to my brothers across the pond in matters of colonialism, since you have the greater experience. However, I would be amiss in calling our little ditch in Panama (equivalent to the Suez) as an example of neo-colonialism. Dominion, would be in the realm of perhaps, but it was a case of suzerainty here, I am unsure of the lengths you went to internally in Egypt, but these were mercantile propositions with a rather big bat to insure who and what was going thru the creek.

Edwynn -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/28/2013 8:27:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Er . . . yeah. Fractions always gave me headaches. [;)] Me, too. Then I quit listening to the teacher and started reading math instead, and the headaches went away. [:D] IWYW, — Aswad. Yep. That's how learned maths, myself. It didn't work till I no longer had a teacher other than myself. Failed the exam first time, passed it four months later, with an A, and after the teaching was out of my head. But I still avoided the 'fractions' questions. [;)] Indeed, 7/8 of what you say is so true. The trouble I had in going back to the uni as a 'mature adult' is that I was used to Hewlett Packard's wonderful Reverse Polish Notation (RPN) scheme in their calculators, as advised by my favorite math teacher (then and since) way back when. The unis have since made their Faustian deal with Texas Instruments and bought a bunch of their (non-RPN-capable) calculators, so now they're handed out to students as uni-issue at the beginning of every exam as the only allowed calculator for use in the tests. Parenthetical considerations are eliminated in the RPN scheme, but 'standard' calculators require one to keep up with the parentheses and all the convoluted nesting therein for any and every exceedingly long calculation till the very end. OK, so maybe only 12/13 of math problems are done faster on RPN calculators, but I can figure out what that means 92.3077% faster in that scheme than I can on a standard calculator. This abrupt disturbance to my prior ordination of various math conundrums causes me difficulty about 5/8 of the time.

Edwynn -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/28/2013 9:56:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: Edwynn: Egypt most certainly qualifies in this instance. We could quibble about Britain not sending a bunch of real estate agents to Egypt to entice British citizens to move there, but there were certainly enough Englanders and Australians and other Commonwealthers invested in the country to impose both political and economic rule to qualify. So if Egypt sold its shares in the Suez project to Britain, then we send in troops to protect the canal, that makes Egypt a colony..... [8\|] Again, you are welcome to cut-paste where I specifically said that "Egypt was a British colony." The discussion presented by the OP is that of colonialism, not colonization, distinction or discernment of which you are apparently incapable, plain-English OED definition aside. In any case, Egypt was under Ottoman control at the time of the Crimean war and had sustained huge debt as result, along with debt from building of the canal itself. The bottom dropping out of the cotton market as result of ending of the US Civil War took away any chance of even servicing that debt (just the interest payments), much less repaying it. The Suez was far more in service to Britain's Indian empire and trade therefrom than it was to Egyptian interests. But make the other guys pay for it and then steal it when they can't pay back the loans to the interested parties who made you pay for what benefited them, due to their own connivance. The IMF has been doing a good job of that in recent times. Your implication as that what was in fact a 'fire sale' transaction to the interests of western banks and creditors and merchants had in the event only to do with gratitude, or in any way was an 'even Steven' exchange in handing the canal over to their 'betters,' (when is it was in fact forcefully handed over to their bettors) is absurd, on its face. The British did indeed send troops to protect the Suez, from the Egyptians.

Phydeaux -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/28/2013 10:24:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Modern civilization depends on a certain amount of trust. I know. I've written about that in the past, particularly in the Gorean section of the board. It's the most offensive element of surveillance society: undermining the very foundation on which every viable civilization is built, namely that of trust. If you can't extend some modicum of trust to me, then you shouldn't seek to coexist in a society with me, and vice versa. This, incidentally, is not limited to modern civilizations. Indeed, it's even clearer in premodern civilization how crucial a certain level of trust is. Without it, we stand alone, lack the very thing that has allowed us to go from being hairless apes to splitting the atom and having virtually every human being in the West capable of accomplishing more than any other animal around. quote: Responsible nations have a motive to encourage dialog. Fundamentalists... don't, until such a bloodbath occurs that even the fundamentalists are set back on their heels. No, enlightened individuals have a motive to encourage dialogue, and the means to realize they do. Nations, on the other hand, tend to collectively miss the point, sinking to the lowest common denominator as regards enlightenment. The same applies to most groups, I suppose. Anyway, the dialogue is not being encouraged up here in Norway, but rather quelled in all channels, ever since the attack on Oslo and Utøya, and you'll have a hard time arguing that we're not one of the more responsible nations out there. Motive isn't the issue. Seeing is. Fundamentalism exists in all societies, and it's generally harder to curb it when socioeconomic conditions are poor, or education is limited. In the West, the watchword is "zero tolerance policy", our word for fundamentalist policies which agree with us. With that in mind, it's not hard to see just how common the underlying disease is, even here, where there are fewer and milder symptoms of it, a difference attributable to education and finances. To improve conditions in the Middle East, investing in the region and encouraging education are two great measures. Kicking ass is not (and we've a poor track record with that, too, anyway). IWYW, — Aswad. Once again we agree and disagree. This is one of the reasons I so actively decry name calling here and in other places. If you don't acknowledge that your political opponents have valid political motives - then you are destroying trust and comity necessary to the fabric of a nation. I do think that nations exist on a continuum, of national characteristics. Much of the EU is an example of collaborative deliberation. (Perhaps too much). I would argue that much of the west has collaborated, and been responsible to try and find solutions.

Edwynn -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/28/2013 10:37:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 So if Egypt sold its shares in the Suez project to Britain, then we send in troops to protect the canal, that makes Egypt a colony..... Right. Since Egypt was not officially designated as a 'colony,' there was no colonialism involved. And since the British controlling agent there was referred to as 'Resident Minister,' Britain never held any rule over the country, nor governed the country in any way, because he was not called 'The Ruler' or 'The Governor.' You, sir, are a piece of work.

mnottertail -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/28/2013 10:58:21 AM)
They bought the canal at 44% interest, a minister doing it without consent of parliament, Disreali was aghast. The French owned the controlling interest and when the Egyptians started fucking with the Canal, the French as always went to shit their pants. The English guarded their interests. When the Brits and Americans wouldn't finance the Aswan dam for the commie Nassar who was lying in bed with the Russkies, he got pissed and tried to nationalize it. Well, that is out and out stealing. As I said it was a strictly mercantile propostion. They were originally invited, and the romance was a dirty one.

Edwynn -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/28/2013 11:26:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail When the Brits and Americans wouldn't finance the Aswan dam for the commie Nassar who was lying in bed with the Russkies, ... Which was Nasser's open invitation to the West to extricate his country from that Faustian deal with the Ruskies. Turned down. The ME countries tried to play off the incoherent-but-obviously-not-in-the-ME-country's-best-interest 'offers' of the Westerners and Russians. You lose some, you lose some. Somewhat like the Castro affair, he who had no dealing yet with Russia when he made his way to the US for his first official state visit, whereupon Eisenhower's handlers made sure he was on the golf course at the appointed time, while Castro twiddled thumbs in the waiting room.

mnottertail -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/28/2013 11:30:37 AM)
Uh, you give old Gamal some fuckin motivations he did not have. He was not looking for being 'extricated' from any Russkie clutches. Castro? Our goddamn mafia is our mafia and we owned those businesses, and the nationalization of American owned assets are not looked upon with beneficince in our capitalistic society.

Edwynn -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/28/2013 11:39:03 AM)
Yeah, right. He could have asked his Ruskie sweethearts to finance the dam, but there he went, steppin' out on them. I tell ya, the crass infidelity that transpires in all these things.

Phydeaux -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/28/2013 2:39:28 PM)
What are you talking about.. he did ask the russkies to finance the damn...

Edwynn -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/28/2013 2:58:19 PM)
We are to suppose you have a point in that? The invite to a Russian bid was made only after Britain withdrew their side of it completely and the US wanted direct US supervision in any deal, etc. The US and Britain made various offers, Russia made theirs. The Russian offer didn't require a collar and leash. No surprise which offer was accepted.

Phydeaux -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/28/2013 3:02:07 PM)
I'm going to just let that go. Its like putin says.. its like sheering a pig. An awful lot of squeeling and precious little wool.

Politesub53 -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/28/2013 4:03:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn Again, you are welcome to cut-paste where I specifically said that "Egypt was a British colony." The discussion presented by the OP is that of colonialism, not colonization, distinction or discernment of which you are apparently incapable, plain-English OED definition aside. In any case, Egypt was under Ottoman control at the time of the Crimean war and had sustained huge debt as result, along with debt from building of the canal itself. The bottom dropping out of the cotton market as result of ending of the US Civil War took away any chance of even servicing that debt (just the interest payments), much less repaying it. The Suez was far more in service to Britain's Indian empire and trade therefrom than it was to Egyptian interests. But make the other guys pay for it and then steal it when they can't pay back the loans to the interested parties who made you pay for what benefited them, due to their own connivance. The IMF has been doing a good job of that in recent times. Your implication as that what was in fact a 'fire sale' transaction to the interests of western banks and creditors and merchants had in the event only to do with gratitude, or in any way was an 'even Steven' exchange in handing the canal over to their 'betters,' (when is it was in fact forcefully handed over to their bettors) is absurd, on its face. The British did indeed send troops to protect the Suez, from the Egyptians. It is quite absurd that you feel colonisation has nothing to do with colonialism, thats like saying a cake has nothing to do with baking it. Back to Suez though..... You do know it was a French venture right ? Because it seems to me you fall down on a few basic historical facts. One being that the British were against its construction from the start. I Sir, may be a piece of work but at least I know WTF I am on about.

Edwynn -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/28/2013 9:14:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 It is quite absurd that you feel colonisation has nothing to do with colonialism, ... Except that I never said anything of the sort. You are completely making crap up yet again, as is your SOP. If you have objection to the OED definition of colonialism, I suggest you take it up with them. quote: Back to Suez though..... You do know it was a French venture right ? Yes. quote: Because it seems to me you fall down on a few basic historical facts. One being that the British were against its construction from the start. Nothing I said indicated otherwise, being that I never addressed the initial efforts to start the project. Just more of your fabrication. But in any case the Br. government overcame their objections quickly enough, a Royal Navy ship sneaking ahead of the French ship carrying their Queen, in the dark of night, so as to be the first to pass through the channel. Had the Br. government not found operation of the canal to be in their interest, they wouldn't have bought Egypt's distressed shares, and wouldn't have gone to war (with France and Israel) to keep it. quote: I Sir, may be a piece of work but at least I know WTF I am on about. You and no one else.

dcnovice -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/28/2013 9:27:56 PM)
quote: One of the distinctions between animals and humans is that a human being when conquered will surrender and benefit from the superior civilization of his conqueror, whereas an animal will fight to its death. That's not always true. Some territorial animals, for instance, will stop once they've repelled an invader. Animals also have any number of threat postures specifically employed to ward off a foe before things escalate.

dcnovice -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/28/2013 9:30:02 PM)
quote: Few would contest the idea that Israel is a client state of the Us. While many on the left would deny that both states have derived benefit; nonetheless they have. What do you see as the benefits to the U.S.?

dcnovice -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/28/2013 9:33:56 PM)
quote: Since Egypt was not officially designated as a 'colony,' there was no colonialism involved. And since the British controlling agent there was referred to as 'Resident Minister,' Britain never held any rule over the country, nor governed the country in any way, because he was not called 'The Ruler' or 'The Governor.' This sounds like word games, to be honest. Who was actually running the place?

Edwynn -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/28/2013 10:45:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn Had the Br. government not found operation of the canal to be in their interest, they wouldn't have bought Egypt's distressed shares, and wouldn't have gone to war (with France and Israel) to keep it. That should have been stated as; "and wouldn't have gone to war (along with France and Israel)". Sorry for any confusion.

tweakabelle -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/29/2013 5:53:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Few would contest the idea that Israel is a client state of the Us. While many on the left would deny that both states have derived benefit; nonetheless they have. What do you see as the benefits to the U.S.? I've been asking that question for months now, and I haven't yet seen a good answer As far as I can tell the only answer is that, if any benefits at all accrue to the US, they are minimal. The US-Israel 'alliance' has got to be one of the stupidest, most one sided 'alliances' ever entered into by an imperial power in history. Wise up USA you are being taken for the ride of your life.

Politesub53 -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/29/2013 5:58:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 It is quite absurd that you feel colonisation has nothing to do with colonialism, ... Except that I never said anything of the sort. You are completely making crap up yet again, as is your SOP. If you have objection to the OED definition of colonialism, I suggest you take it up with them. quote: Back to Suez though..... You do know it was a French venture right ? Yes. quote: Because it seems to me you fall down on a few basic historical facts. One being that the British were against its construction from the start. Nothing I said indicated otherwise, being that I never addressed the initial efforts to start the project. Just more of your fabrication. But in any case the Br. government overcame their objections quickly enough, a Royal Navy ship sneaking ahead of the French ship carrying their Queen, in the dark of night, so as to be the first to pass through the channel. Had the Br. government not found operation of the canal to be in their interest, they wouldn't have bought Egypt's distressed shares, and wouldn't have gone to war (with France and Israel) to keep it. quote: I Sir, may be a piece of work but at least I know WTF I am on about. You and no one else. quote: The discussion presented by the OP is that of colonialism, not colonization, distinction or discernment of which you are apparently incapable, plain-English OED definition aside. To prove a point you have decided to jump 80 odd years forward in history, without taking into account the start of the Suez venture, let alone the Convention of Constantinople. Egypt was only ever a British Protectorate and even that was only from 1914 to 1922.

Page: << < prev 12 13 [14] 15 16 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875