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

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/26/2013 4:50:08 AM)
Double post...

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/26/2013 4:57:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule There are about 44 million Muslims in Europe at the moment. In 2030 there will be about sixty million. How is that not an invasion by nearly one million Muslims per year? Well, like, because they enter with permission of the target country and according to its laws. BTW the same happens with the dutch people who enter in Germany. Somehow this is also not an invasion. I don't know why you consider it only "invasion" if they are Muslims.

Kirata -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/26/2013 5:26:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster Well, like, because they enter with permission of the target country and according to its laws. Cue ESL. K.

vincentML -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/26/2013 5:33:06 AM)
quote: Also, Why do you think I missed that fact that colonization was not optional? Colonialization, however was probably a better choice for them than extinction. The same choice that has been made millions of times in history. And the opposite is also true - do you know the location of carthage? Of course not, because the Romans, tired of the wars, executed the carthaginian solution. They killed every man, woman and child, and sowed the fields with salt. You give a misrepresentation of the process of colonization in the Middle East by the French, British, and Americans. Also, you propose a false choice between colonization and extinction. Although the British were involved in Persia before 1914, and the Germans to a greater extent in Arabia and the Levant, the major dislocations took place as consequence of the Ottoman entry into WW1 on the side of Germany. The Allies engaged local tribesmen against the Ottomans with promises of Independence (T.E. Lawrence) and then betrayed those promises. Not to say some of the locals were not complicit in forming joint oil ventures with their new masters. Until Mosaddeq rebelled against the inequity of the dispersal of income from British Petroleum. It is also a misrepresentation for anyone to say the Allies willfully became colonizers of the area in the same way Africa and the Americas were colonized or the way India was colonized. Colonization of the ME was more the result of a clash between Empires in a war that began elsewhere. btw, kudos for your assumed name, dawg. [:)]

MrBukani -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/26/2013 6:51:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster quote: ORIGINAL: Rule There are about 44 million Muslims in Europe at the moment. In 2030 there will be about sixty million. How is that not an invasion by nearly one million Muslims per year? Well, like, because they enter with permission of the target country and according to its laws. BTW the same happens with the dutch people who enter in Germany. Somehow this is also not an invasion. I don't know why you consider it only "invasion" if they are Muslims. Because dutch people speak fluent german. Because more then half our inmates are muslim. Because it's a silent invasive tactic called we breed the christians out. Because they don't adapt to the culture like we dutchies do in dubai. Because they have no respect for our culture. Because this is the oldest non agressive invasive tactic of muslims. But it's not colonizing a country, it's takin over one through immigration. Different tactic same result except it's more effective.

MrBukani -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/26/2013 7:03:13 AM)
Anyway I still didn't see anybody agree with me the Kurds deserve their own country too. So obviously you are all against those people having the right to govern themselves. That's why people in general are hypocrites when they cry about palestinians. And I know why nobody enters this argument cause your world will be turned upside down. Hope it's a comfortable ride in the tunnel of denial. And again history stops at about the year 1900. It's like talkin to christians who say the world was made in 6 days and it's not older then a couple millenia? Ah why bother? Oh yeah, I know, ignorance just fuels my discontent of so called civilized people. You know they say the birth of civilisation started with cities. It's also in those cities the all out wars started. There is your cradle of civilisation.

Phydeaux -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/26/2013 8:34:47 AM)
quote: The contempt expressed ("It is laughable* that you want peace and justice") for peace shows us the war mongering heart of your discourse. No it shows your poor reading skills. I have no contempt for peace nor justice. The contempt was for the position that you* want peace and justice. You open decrying the 'evils' of colonialism, and how horrid the west is. Which is an extreme partisan position (although probably not in your circles). And then say you want peace and justice. You can't even recognize that justice is subjective. And your black and white depictions of morality are ridiculous. There are 'moral' wars just as there are immoral wars. For example - the serbians killed croatians. The americans invaded (airspace if not ground) and defended the bosnians and croats. According to your definiton that intervention the americans are morally inferior for choosing to stop genocide. According to you the Americans intervening in WWII is immoral. So once you see that perhaps not all wars make one morally inferior, then perhaps you have to start thinking about the objectives, goals and costs of war. Possibly, although I don't think you can make the leap. Take for example the american intervention in WWII. Was it the moral thing to do? Yes, by western values, because millions of innocent people were being killed. Was it in the national interest of the US - certainly - but this is an entirely separate question. It was in the national interest because in the opinion of our leaders having an empire headed by Hitler would be detrimental. Take the US invasion of Grenada. Noriega is pushing drugs. And he threatened several hundred americans. This has implications for the perception of power. Is it in the US interest to invade. Yes. But is it moral is a far more difficult question. My answer would be 'yes'. Noriega's would probably be 'no'. I would say yes, because it gave the people of grenada the opportunity to put in the government of their choice. As a final moral conundrum. You have a state with 15 million people, lets say. And a birthrate of 3 births per woman. They have hostile nations surrounding them - say with a population of 12 million. Implacably hostile. In fact you've fought 3-4 wars, every few years. Constant terrorism. And a birthrate of 4.5 births per woman. If you let this go one generation - the populations would be 37 million to 39 million. If it goes 2 generations 88 million to 219 million. At which point the second nation is in a position to completely eradicate the first nation. So is it moral for the first nation to attack while it has a population advantage? Probably not. But it damn may well be in their national interest.

Phydeaux -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/26/2013 8:39:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrBukani Anyway I still didn't see anybody agree with me the Kurds deserve their own country too. So obviously you are all against those people having the right to govern themselves. That's why people in general are hypocrites when they cry about palestinians. And I know why nobody enters this argument cause your world will be turned upside down. Hope it's a comfortable ride in the tunnel of denial. And again history stops at about the year 1900. It's like talkin to christians who say the world was made in 6 days and it's not older then a couple millenia? Ah why bother? Oh yeah, I know, ignorance just fuels my discontent of so called civilized people. You know they say the birth of civilisation started with cities. It's also in those cities the all out wars started. There is your cradle of civilisation. I don't agree that anybody 'deserves' anything. Would I help the Kurds - yes. I would help them both because I support the idea of self determination and because the formation of a Kurdish state would a). Incur (perhaps) friendship with the Kurds. b). screw with Iran, Iraq, and turkey. Turkey has been a agood ally of the united states, but is rapidly falling into muslim fundamentalism. c). Have the possibility of establishing a somewhat stable state, in an area where (currently) tribal boundaries conflict with state boundaries.

Phydeaux -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/26/2013 8:50:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: Also, Why do you think I missed that fact that colonization was not optional? Colonialization, however was probably a better choice for them than extinction. The same choice that has been made millions of times in history. And the opposite is also true - do you know the location of carthage? Of course not, because the Romans, tired of the wars, executed the carthaginian solution. They killed every man, woman and child, and sowed the fields with salt. You give a misrepresentation of the process of colonization in the Middle East by the French, British, and Americans. Also, you propose a false choice between colonization and extinction. Although the British were involved in Persia before 1914, and the Germans to a greater extent in Arabia and the Levant, the major dislocations took place as consequence of the Ottoman entry into WW1 on the side of Germany. The Allies engaged local tribesmen against the Ottomans with promises of Independence (T.E. Lawrence) and then betrayed those promises. Not to say some of the locals were not complicit in forming joint oil ventures with their new masters. Until Mosaddeq rebelled against the inequity of the dispersal of income from British Petroleum. It is also a misrepresentation for anyone to say the Allies willfully became colonizers of the area in the same way Africa and the Americas were colonized or the way India was colonized. Colonization of the ME was more the result of a clash between Empires in a war that began elsewhere. btw, kudos for your assumed name, dawg. [:)] Thanks for the kudos. I don't know why you said I made a misrepresentation about the process of colonization in the Middle East. I made NO representations about the process of colonization there, at all. The original poster said all colonizers were evil. The west is terrible. The sky is falling! Why can't you recognize how evil you are etc etc. I said that colonization is one data point in a spectrum of statecraft for both the dominant and subdominant culture. And it is. Certainlly cultures can (and have) resisted to the death before - but this is not actually to what I was referring. Areas become colonies (or client states) voluntarily as well. For example the US (and britain, to some extent) set up the hashemites as kings in Saudia Arabia and Jordan. And while our influence with these client states is fading - nonetheless this has been a profitable for both countries. As I said, client states, colonies, allies (like the us/britain) - all are just points on the continuum of statecraft where states try to effect results to the benefits of their nations.

vincentML -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/26/2013 8:53:08 AM)
quote: Because dutch people speak fluent german. Because more then half our inmates are muslim. Because it's a silent invasive tactic called we breed the christians out. Because they don't adapt to the culture like we dutchies do in dubai. Because they have no respect for our culture. Because this is the oldest non agressive invasive tactic of muslims. But it's not colonizing a country, it's takin over one through immigration. Different tactic same result except it's more effective. I have read in news sources here in the States that the recent rioting in Sweden and previously in Paris had its origins from barriers to assimilation in those countries and the inability to gain any but low wage labor. In the States, no matter how much people rail against our international behaviour, assimilation of immigrants has been historically successful. Currently, Latinos are prospering with businesses and comfortable homes. A look around the Miami suburbs will confirm that observation. And previously German, Irish, Italian, Polish, Jewish, and Asian immigrants have assimilated. Mostly all of these groups began with low paying wages. According to Pew Research the third generation are fluent in English. We also have populations of Iraqi and Iranians, etc. More than 70 different languages are spoken in New York City. So, how is it the immigrating/assimilating of Muslims into European cultures different? What is the problem? Is it basically an irreconcilable religious conflict? Is it really all the blame and evil intentions of the Muslims or do the Euros share blame? Curious to know.

Phydeaux -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/26/2013 9:23:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux I didn't say we never invaded anyone for oi. I said we didn't invade afghanistan for oil. We didn't invade for the oil fields, we invaded for the pipelines. Chevron said (in 1997) that they couldn't proceed with their venture until the Taliban were evicted. Billions are not spent for ideological prosthletization, but for a solid return on equity, capitalized by tax payers and soldiers, with no return to either of them for that investment. You didn't know that that's how capitalism works for the mentally deranged, did you? Almost any of us would like to see the Taliban evicted from the planet, but Chevron had no interest in that regard other than their precious pipelines. quote: The afghan oil fields were shut down prior to american invsion, fwiw. What timing. What strategical enui on their part. You sir, are a conspiracy nut. Sure America waged a war - not because the taliban provided a haven for jihadists. The very same jihadists that flew planes into the world trade center and conducted dozens of other acts of terrorism. No, the real reason america invaded was because chevron said in 1997 they wanted to build a pipeline! In a project they pulled out of in 1998 A pipeline that would take afghan oil to that hotbead of stability - pakistan. A company that has proposed - and pulled out of hundreds of pipe lines and development projects in the past. Guess we should go read the files to know where our next war is going to be. And for what purpose - wow we did it so the chinese could purchase the oil on the free market. Because, as I proved THE US GETS NO OIL FROM AFGHANISTAN. But sure we invaded for oil. And once we were there, and set up a puppet government - we let the puppet government issue oil rights. But not to us. To Chinese firms. Oh yea- and at a time that american oil production is ramping up. And in fact we will become the second biggest producer this year or next - and the largest oil producer probably two years after that. And our domestic costs of production are well under the costs of drilling, producing in one of the most inhospitable terrains on earth - with no convenient port. With no infrastructure like power, roads. Sure we did. We're complete morons.

Real0ne -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/26/2013 9:28:17 AM)
nope, try again

Phydeaux -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/26/2013 9:37:12 AM)
quote: I do see the invasion of Palestine as an imperialist issue, not colonialist, and I think I can support it with very good facts. But make no big difference on the moral aspect so yes, it may count as "technicality" in this thread. And yet the difference between client-state and colony does not. Could it be because you have different standards depending on whether you agree with the POV?

Rule -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/26/2013 9:42:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML I have read in news sources here in the States that the recent rioting in Sweden and previously in Paris had its origins from barriers to assimilation in those countries and the inability to gain any but low wage labor. When the Swedish or French emigrate to another country, do you see them not assimilate, earn low wages and rioting? quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML In the States, no matter how much people rail against our international behaviour, assimilation of immigrants has been historically successful. Currently, Latinos are prospering with businesses and comfortable homes. A look around the Miami suburbs will confirm that observation. Latinos are of mostly Christian descend. They therefore mostly are civilized people. quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML And previously German, Irish, Italian, Polish, Jewish, and Asian immigrants have assimilated. The Germans, Irish, Italian and Polish are all of Christian descend; and what savage alleles were in them (especially the Polish and Irish) got washed out during subsequent generations by evolving in the larger population of Christian USA citizens. The Jews presumably mostly were European Jews. I dunno about the Asians. quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML We also have populations of Iraqi and Iranians, etc. Yes? quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML More than 70 different languages are spoken in New York City. About 200 languages are spoken in Amsterdam, if I recall correctly. quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML So, how is it the immigrating/assimilating of Muslims into European cultures different? What is the problem? Is it basically an irreconcilable religious conflict? Is it really all the blame and evil intentions of the Muslims or do the Euros share blame? Curious to know. Well let's take two populations of one million each: one a monogamous Muslim population with a propensity of cousins marrying each other, the other a non-inbreeding Christian population with some adulterous females. Now let's suppose that in each population is one male with a new civil allele. Forward two hundred years and let us assume that both populations still have one million individuals. The Muslim population still has one individual with the new civil allele. The other population with the one million Christians all have the new civil allele. It is simple population genetics.

Phydeaux -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/26/2013 9:48:40 AM)
quote: In the States, no matter how much people rail against our international behaviour, assimilation of immigrants has been historically successful. Currently, Latinos are prospering with businesses and comfortable homes. A look around the Miami suburbs will confirm that observation. And previously German, Irish, Italian, Polish, Jewish, and Asian immigrants have assimilated. Mostly all of these groups began with low paying wages. According to Pew Research the third generation are fluent in English. We also have populations of Iraqi and Iranians, etc. More than 70 different languages are spoken in New York City. So, how is it the immigrating/assimilating of Muslims into European cultures different? What is the problem? Is it basically an irreconcilable religious conflict? Is it really all the blame and evil intentions of the Muslims or do the Euros share blame? Curious to know. Hey vincent. The french have historically had very successful assimilation, among the Europeans. But assimilation is half of the rate it was occuring in the late 50's and 60's. A number of factors of involved, but essentially the larger the group of immigrants, and the more cohesive and centralized - the slower assimilation proceeds. But thats not the effect thats occuring here. The muslims in france are for the most part fluent in french, coming from typically french influenced areas in northafrica such as algeria. However while the 'immigrants' are fluent in french and have some experience with culture, political norms etc -they are not assimilating. Certainly I think statist institutions have exacerbated the problem. But the fundamental problem, IMO is the issue or idea of uma. Muslims are emigrating with the idea of expanding the muslim world. According to muslim ideology the community of believers trumps arbitrary boundaries of statecraft. Just like in the southwest illegals are crossing the border with the idea of 'la reconquista' - the reconquest - I think the people immigrating with these ideas logically more resistant to assimilation - versus previous generations of immigrants that merely wanted a place to be free and to live their life.

Real0ne -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/26/2013 9:59:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Thanks for the kudos. I don't know why you said I made a misrepresentation about the process of colonization in the Middle East. I made NO representations about the process of colonization there, at all. The original poster said all colonizers were evil. The west is terrible. The sky is falling! Why can't you recognize how evil you are etc etc. I said that colonization is one data point in a spectrum of statecraft for both the dominant and subdominant culture. And it is. Certainlly cultures can (and have) resisted to the death before - but this is not actually to what I was referring. Areas become colonies (or client states) voluntarily as well. For example the US (and britain, to some extent) set up the hashemites as kings in Saudia Arabia and Jordan. And while our influence with these client states is fading - nonetheless this has been a profitable for both countries. As I said, client states, colonies, allies (like the us/britain) - all are just points on the continuum of statecraft where states try to effect results to the benefits of their nations. and what is a state for 100? nothing more than an association of businesses for profit, mostly their own, who eventually force all inhabitants to into their religion worshiping the almighty dollar. Meantime and over time they claim they have jurisdiction over every fucking thing, and through corporate loans et al the bank comes in and ultimately enslaves the whole 9 yards. You unwittingly proved how states are created and hence their illegitimacy of jurisdiction over ANYONE but their own signed sealed delivered members. good post [image]http://i1273.photobucket.com/albums/y410/mypbemotes/blacks/misc/wisconsincreationofconstitutionpoliticiansbenefit1_zpsb1ddccef.jpg[/image] So we know who "We The People" are! Wis Stat 001 1.01 State sovereignty and jurisdiction. The sovereignty and jurisdiction of this state extend to all places within the boundaries declared in article II of the constitution, subject only to such rights of jurisdiction as have been or shall be acquired by the United States over any places therein; and the governor, and all subordinate officers of the state, shall maintain and defend its sovereignty and jurisdiction. We know who "We the People" are sworn to protect and it AINT YOU AND ME! [image]http://i1273.photobucket.com/albums/y410/mypbemotes/emotes/borgtindukesht/We-The-Government_zps08bb6a1a.jpg[/image]

YN -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/26/2013 9:59:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule Latinos are of mostly Christian descend. They therefore mostly are civilized people. LOL. Christianity has nothing to do with it. Much of the people you call "Latinos" were civilized when your ancestors were wearing blue paint, barking at each other like dogs, and holding your women in common. The Indians in the Mississippi River valley and New Mexico had a civilization before the Dutch did. Never mind Peru, Mexico, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Chile, Columbia, Venezuela, etc. If anything the savagery of the Christians of 500 years ago make the Taliban appear as saints. Perhaps Muslims should colonize Europe and bring "civilization" there, since you are such an advocate of "colonization."

Real0ne -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/26/2013 10:13:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux The french have historically had very successful assimilation, among the Europeans. But assimilation is half of the rate it was occuring in the late 50's and 60's. A number of factors of involved, but essentially the larger the group of immigrants, and the more cohesive and centralized - the slower assimilation proceeds. But thats not the effect thats occuring here. The muslims in france are for the most part fluent in french, coming from typically french influenced areas in northafrica such as algeria. However while the 'immigrants' are fluent in french and have some experience with culture, political norms etc -they are not assimilating. Certainly I think statist institutions have exacerbated the problem. But the fundamental problem, IMO is the issue or idea of uma. Muslims are emigrating with the idea of expanding the muslim world. According to muslim ideology the community of believers trumps arbitrary boundaries of statecraft. Just like in the southwest illegals are crossing the border with the idea of 'la reconquista' - the reconquest - I think the people immigrating with these ideas logically more resistant to assimilation - versus previous generations of immigrants that merely wanted a place to be free and to live their life. previous immigrants found out they were handed a pile of horsehit and resulting in all their rights being sacrificed to these aristocracies. The US "sovereign" included. [image]http://i1273.photobucket.com/albums/y410/mypbemotes/emotes/borgtindukesht/wearetheborg_zps74b9274b.jpg[/image]

Phydeaux -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/26/2013 10:18:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Thanks for the kudos. I don't know why you said I made a misrepresentation about the process of colonization in the Middle East. I made NO representations about the process of colonization there, at all. The original poster said all colonizers were evil. The west is terrible. The sky is falling! Why can't you recognize how evil you are etc etc. I said that colonization is one data point in a spectrum of statecraft for both the dominant and subdominant culture. And it is. Certainlly cultures can (and have) resisted to the death before - but this is not actually to what I was referring. Areas become colonies (or client states) voluntarily as well. For example the US (and britain, to some extent) set up the hashemites as kings in Saudia Arabia and Jordan. And while our influence with these client states is fading - nonetheless this has been a profitable for both countries. As I said, client states, colonies, allies (like the us/britain) - all are just points on the continuum of statecraft where states try to effect results to the benefits of their nations. and what is a state for 100? nothing more than an association of businesses for profit, mostly their own, who eventually force all inhabitants to into their religion worshiping the almighty dollar. Meantime and over time they claim they have jurisdiction over every fucking thing, and through corporate loans et al the bank comes in and ultimately enslaves the whole 9 yards. You unwittingly proved how states are created and hence their illegitimacy of jurisdiction over ANYONE but their own signed sealed delivered members. good post Why do you think I unwittingly proved that? Of course that's all a state is.

kdsub -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/26/2013 10:19:04 AM)
Lots of bashing of past and present world powers but the bottom line is where would the world be without colonialism... How else are advanced ideas and civilization spread... to in the end... benefit most people if not cultures. Butch

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625