| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmmm, lots of stuff.
Let's see: I believe that there was a ramping up of attacks on the Coptic community since the beginning of Tahrir Square and before Morsi was even elected. I had thought that most of the attacks were carried out by Egyptian security forces rather than Muslim Brotherhood squads, but I haven't checked in on that in a while.
Either way, I am no fan of either Morsi or the MB and, although I'm not down with Islam, I am more concerned with the fact that he was pretty much hand-picked by the Egyptian generals as an acceptable candidate (the previous MB candidate had been nixed by the Electoral Commission).
I certainly don't think present-day Egypt looks anything like freedom, either. Link
I don't really have the inclination to go into Islam itself, but I doubt that every Muslim believes that all infidels should die. I doubt every Muslim believes that if a woman is raped it's her fault. As a matter of fact, I know that it's not true because I have known a couple dozen Muslims in my life and they didn't believe either of those things.
I'm not going to even bother talking to you about socialism, but: the United States wasn't built on equality and freedom, it was built on slavery and murdering Indians.
Technically using the Leninist definition, the United States didn't become imperialist until the late 19th century, but if, say, a Shawnee were to make an argument for American imperialism at the time of the Constitution, I probably wouldn't disagree.
I had more to write, but I saw Citizen K(e)rensky was ninja'ing me on the Native American thing.
M&$$*~@&&@&+.
|
Who's being provincial now?
Huh, the Philipines declaration of seperation of church and state is lifted almost word for word from ours.
I can't believe we didn't think of copyrighting our Constitution so that we could charge people a fee when they copy it like this.
Total capitalism fail!
|
|
Here in the US, we often forget other people have freedom too.
If we entertain the dangerous and muddle-headed notion that other nations have rights and freedoms and that their leaders were somehow the leaders they democratically chose for themselves, it might restrict our ability to go in there and impose democracy upon them via regime change, when it proves to our financial or political advantage.
Do you want the terrorists to win?
I always pictured Imperialism more about controlling areas outside of the home nation. Rome sent the legions to conquer and send riches/food back to Rome. Whereas the US westward expansion was about genocide and clearing the land. We didn't give a s$&@ about the native americans. Some Imperialist methods were definitely applied to them, but we kind of just put them in a corner and assumed they'd just stay there forever.
I would agree that we didn't really start being an Empire until the Spanish-American war, but that doesn't mean we weren't asshats prior to that.
Good evening Set, and
Well, seeing as how the US conquered the Phillippines back in 1898 and then murdered a million or so of their people and then ruled the country until the Japanese came along...maybe not such a capitalist fail after all.
I always pictured Imperialism more about controlling areas outside of the home nation. Rome sent the legions to conquer and send riches/food back to Rome. Whereas the US westward expansion was about genocide and clearing the land. We didn't give a s*+@ about the native americans. Some Imperialist methods were definitely applied to them, but we kind of just put them in a corner and assumed they'd just stay there forever.
I would agree that we didn't really start being an Empire until the Spanish-American war, but that doesn't mean we weren't asshats prior to that.
I don't really disagree, but, where does one draw the line? What's the difference between Rome moving west and conquering Gaul and America moving west and conquering the Plains Indians and then turning their homelands into our bread basket? I don't know.
Interestingly, though, American expansion westward kind of mirrors Russia's expansion eastward until the two (kind of) met in Alaska.
|
It's written into the religion, there may be areas where certain aspects of the religion is ignored or less honored but it is still written in the religion. As far as I know (I haven't finished the bible yet so I may be mistaken), women being property and not human, isn't written into Christianity or Judaism.
My religion teacher related Chritianity with espousing love/compassion, Judaism with law, and Islam with duty.
Duty is the most dangerous of those three. Duty is still usually a good thing, except when someone sees it as their duty to do something against the law or against the commonly accepted practice.
except the whole husband is the master do as he says thing
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I always pictured Imperialism more about controlling areas outside of the home nation. Rome sent the legions to conquer and send riches/food back to Rome. Whereas the US westward expansion was about genocide and clearing the land. We didn't give a s&!& about the native americans. Some Imperialist methods were definitely applied to them, but we kind of just put them in a corner and assumed they'd just stay there forever.
I would agree that we didn't really start being an Empire until the Spanish-American war, but that doesn't mean we weren't asshats prior to that.
Rome started as a single city, a colony if you will, it swallowed it's neighbors it's peninsular, the surrounding islands then large chunks of 3 continents.
It went to war because either as a reaction to attacks, economic need/want (more greed than need) and to pre-empt any response from surrounding nations/peoples. What it could not control via force it controlled via hegemony, ecomics and alliance.
The US started the same way, it swallowed a very large part of a continent for the above reasons.
For some reason taking the land off the native Americans doesn't count as imperialism.... Yet when the British rob Africans, Australian Aboriginals and Indians both of the Canadian and Sub Continental variety of thier land it is Imperialism.
I suppose the difference is the British we're upfront about it - we have an Empire and we are going to make the world British.
Where as the US had that whole freedom and liberty for all thing unless you were, a woman (to some extent) black, Native American or Mexican....but you can't say that out aloud or you may shake the foundations of your creation myth.
.
The difference is we killed them or drove them out rather than conquering them and taxing and ruling them.I don't really disagree, but, where does one draw the line? What's the difference between Rome moving west and conquering Gaul and America moving west and conquering the Plains Indians and then turning their homelands into our bread basket? I don't know.
Interestingly, though, American expansion westward kind of mirrors Russia's expansion eastward until the two (kind of) met in Alaska.
So, then, the United States was less imperialist than Tsarist Russia because where the Russians subjugated the aborigines they met, we just killed them. Okay, that works.
...All of a sudden the "Five Civilized Tribes" spring to mind. It took, what, 40-50 years before we decided to expel them to the frontier? I don't know if they paid taxes during that time, but can we call that imperialism?
I suppose the difference is the British we're upfront about it - we have an Empire and we are going to make the world British.
Where as the US had that whole freedom and liberty for all thing unless you were, a woman (to some extent) black, Native American or Mexican....but you can't say that out aloud or you may shake the foundations of your creation myth.
.
Shake it, baby, shake it!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's the paradox of America.
It is true and important that we were founded on Freedom and Liberty. It was in many ways a new thing and it changed the world for the better. Though as with everything it was a development from other things that were going on in Europe and influences from the native Americans.
But the US was also founded on Genocide and Slavery. That can't be ignored either and it all too often has. That tension's been there throughout our history.
Every time any group of humans decide they know better how we should live they sweep all others aside via forced assimilation, slavery or death. weather it is a nation, religion or political movement as soon as they have the power and guts to try it is almost inevitable.
What about the pacifists?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's the paradox of America.
It is true and important that we were founded on Freedom and Liberty. It was in many ways a new thing and it changed the world for the better. Though as with everything it was a development from other things that were going on in Europe and influences from the native Americans.
But the US was also founded on Genocide and Slavery. That can't be ignored either and it all too often has. That tension's been there throughout our history.
I don't know. It sounds nice and all, but I suspect that what it really means is that Thomas Jefferson wrote some pretty prose when he got bored with raping his slaves.
And, of course, they didn't invent any (or few anyway) of those ideas. Some came from the English Civil War, which also talked a pretty good game...and then brutalized the Irish. And some of them came from the European Enlightenment, which blossomed into the French Revolution...and ended up with Napoleon (who I still would have taken over, say, the Hapsburgs).
But it does allow us to console ourselves while watching the news from Afghanistan, I suppose.
|
|
What about the pacifists?
As a culture? Mythical or extinct.
So long as all of the land and resources are locked up by older generations (or corporations, banks, whatever), and the majority of their offspring are fated to remain renters and, essentially, eternal vassals of the landowner class, the younger generations will feel the drive to expand into new territories to become landowners themselves and escape a life spent paying the landowners for the permission to not be homeless.
The Vikings, the Romans, the British, etc. have all handled this problem the same way. Go forth, young men, and plant our flag far, far, far away from the country of your birth. Bring enlightenment to the savages, or whatever. Just be darn sure that you can't stay here, because all of *these* lands and resources and women are already spoken for...
It's the 'get off our lawn' theory of imperial expansionism. Also known as lebensraum.
I meant as a political movement, but mostly I was just being a dick. It's something I do, especially when Citizen R. is around.
And if I may be so bold, Set, what's made you start coming into the politroll threads lately? I don't think I've ever seen you in here before the last week or so.
Also, seeing as we both have night jobs and both spend too much time on Paizo (well, I do, anyway), why don't we blow this popstand and, I don't know, play some f%#~ing D&D or something?
For some reason taking the land off the native Americans doesn't count as imperialism.... Yet when the British rob Africans, Australian Aboriginals and Indians both of the Canadian and Sub Continental variety of thier land it is Imperialism.
Yes we're definitely coy about it, but I would also consider it like this:
The french sent traders over and used their economic influence to get what they wanted from the locals.
The US came in, killed everyone, declared the land uninhabited and then patted themselves on the back for 'taming' it. The US committed atrocities, including genocide, it just doesn't really strike me as "empire building" as much.
I would describe our annexation of Hawaii as more akin to the British Empire than most of our westward expansion. If we had forced them all to jump in the ocean and swim for Easter Island, it would be more like how we treated many Native Americans.
What about the pacifists?As a culture? Mythical or extinct.
So long as all of the land and resources are locked up by older generations (or corporations, banks, whatever), and the majority of their offspring are fated to remain renters and, essentially, eternal vassals of the landowner class, the younger generations will feel the drive to expand into new territories to become landowners themselves and escape a life spent paying the landowners for the permission to not be homeless.
The Vikings, the Romans, the British, etc. have all handled this problem the same way. Go forth, young men, and plant our flag far, far, far away from the country of your birth. Bring enlightenment to the savages, or whatever. Just be darn sure that you can't stay here, because all of *these* lands and resources and women are already spoken for...
It's the 'get off our lawn' theory of imperial expansionism. Also known as lebensraum.
Heh, there's a game that uses this theme. 3:16 Carnage Amongst the Stars.
Earth has solved most of the medical problems, so people live for a really long time and overpopulation is a problem. The solution is to build giant military ships, fill them with soldiers and send them out to kill aliens as a "preemptive measure", with strict orders (only given to the commander of the ship) to never return home.
The US came in, killed everyone, declared the land uninhabited and then patted themselves on the back for 'taming' it. The US committed atrocities, including genocide, it just doesn't really strike me as "empire building" as much.
I don't know. We started hugging the Atlantic coast and then, less than a century later, we're straddling the whole continent. I think it doesn't strike us Americans as "empire building" because we were taught as wee ones to instead call it "Manifest Destiny."
I don't have it at hand, but in one of his essays about early American history, my Trollfather pointed out how often the word "empire" was used in the writings of the Founding Fathers. I guess they just left it out of Poor Richard's Almanac and the broadsheets.
They were smart, I'll grant you that. And, usually, I am more willing to take a historically relativist viewpoint and say, yeah, the American Revolution was a step forward in the history of the human species.
But I still don't know what it means the we were founded on Liberty and Freedom when only property-owning (which in half of the country meant slave-owning) white males could vote on tax bills to raise troops to go kill Indians.
For some reason taking the land off the native Americans doesn't count as imperialism.... Yet when the British rob Africans, Australian Aboriginals and Indians both of the Canadian and Sub Continental variety of thier land it is Imperialism.Yes we're definitely coy about it, but I would also consider it like this:
The french sent traders over and used their economic influence to get what they wanted from the locals.
The US came in, killed everyone, declared the land uninhabited and then patted themselves on the back for 'taming' it. The US committed atrocities, including genocide, it just doesn't really strike me as "empire building" as much.
I would describe our annexation of Hawaii as more akin to the British Empire than most of our westward expansion. If we had forced them all to jump in the ocean and swim for Easter Island, it would be more like how we treated many Native Americans.
The British up until 1901 and then the Australian government after that did the genocide extermination thing in Australia.
New Zealand - they tried it and did not win.
Its no different...
|
|
I meant as a political movement, but mostly I was just being a dick. It's something I do, especially when Citizen R. is around.
And if I may be so bold, Set, what's made you start coming into the politroll threads lately? I don't think I've ever seen you in here before the last week or so.
Also, seeing as we both have night jobs and both spend too much time on Paizo (well, I do, anyway), why don't we blow this popstand and, I don't know, play some f##~ing D&D or something?
And the dickness is noticed
I think the terms y'all are wrestling with are imperialism vs. colonialism. Imperialism includes genocide but generally just means kill people that live *points* out there and bring there stuff back home.
The concept of colonialism (as I understand it) mostly involves attempts to convert the natives to your way of life (read: economy) and get them to join your society as the new lowest rung on the totem pole.
The two are closely intertwined, and many great empires participated in colonialism to varying degrees.
For some reason taking the land off the native Americans doesn't count as imperialism.... Yet when the British rob Africans, Australian Aboriginals and Indians both of the Canadian and Sub Continental variety of thier land it is Imperialism.Yes we're definitely coy about it, but I would also consider it like this:
The french sent traders over and used their economic influence to get what they wanted from the locals.
The US came in, killed everyone, declared the land uninhabited and then patted themselves on the back for 'taming' it. The US committed atrocities, including genocide, it just doesn't really strike me as "empire building" as much.
I would describe our annexation of Hawaii as more akin to the British Empire than most of our westward expansion. If we had forced them all to jump in the ocean and swim for Easter Island, it would be more like how we treated many Native Americans.
The British up until 1901 and then the Australian government after that did the genocide extermination thing in Australia.
New Zealand - they tried it and did not win.
Its no different...
It is 'different', because situations are always different. I'm not trying to say America is less bad or something. It just doesn't feel like imperialism.
Okay, for example, South Africa. At one point, the whites being in charge was a product of imperialism. After the Boer wars it became something else though. By the end of Apartheid, the whites in South Africa definitely still had ties to Europe, but really they were Africans and part of the people of SA now. Just because atrocities are no longer done in the name of imperialism doesn't make them better, I'm not trying to say that.
If a guy leaves England, goes to Australia and oppresses the native peoples, that's imperialism.
If a guy who's entire family lives in Australia, everyone he knows and is related to was born in Australia, its no longer really imperialism anymore. Just run of the mill internal oppression.
The roots might be imperialistic, but it's something else.
I think I went the first half of my life, probably lots more, without seeing any Dakota, Sioux, Chippewa or Ojibwe people in person, the native tribes around the area I grew up in. We didn't come in and make them work for us. We showed up, killed them and took their land. It's less imperialism and just flat out genocide IMO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because that was a major step forward. Compared to the absolute monarchies of most of Europe, or even the more limited one of England. We proved that people could rule themselves. Without collapsing into terror and eventually dictatorship as the French Revolution did not long after.
The world would be vary different if the French model had been the only one people had for democracy.
So, then, the French Revolution isn't a good model because Freedom and Liberty led to chopping off the heads of the aristos and their stooges, but the American Revolution is because Freedom and Liberty led to slavery and genocide?
My mind still boggles.
And the dickness is noticedI meant as a political movement, but mostly I was just being a dick. It's something I do, especially when Citizen R. is around.
And if I may be so bold, Set, what's made you start coming into the politroll threads lately? I don't think I've ever seen you in here before the last week or so.
Also, seeing as we both have night jobs and both spend too much time on Paizo (well, I do, anyway), why don't we blow this popstand and, I don't know, play some f##~ing D&D or something?
Good.
Okay, for example, South Africa. At one point, the whites being in charge was a product of imperialism. After the Boer wars it became something else though. By the end of Apartheid, the whites in South Africa definitely still had ties to Europe, but really they were Africans and part of the people of SA now. Just because atrocities are no longer done in the name of imperialism doesn't make them better, I'm not trying to say that.
I don't think the Afrikaaners actually were in charge of proto-South Africa before the Boer War, I think they were just one (white) group that fought with all of the other (black) groups who also fought amongst themselves.
I seem to remember that it wasn't until Britain crushed both the Zulus and the Boers that there was even a South Africa...but it's been a long while since I've read about the original Scramble for Africa.
|
America being founded on equality and freedom was important because, despite us not really sticking to them very well, they were still held as the major values to live by and thus later generations kept inching closer to those ideals, minorities can vote, women are legaly equal to men with society catching up pretty quick, we have a black/arab something or another for a president (I wouldn't have voted for him, but that wasn't a result of his ethnicity), so yes, we did bad things in the past, but by holding those values above everything, we have come closer to attaining those values.
Now if only this country can survive capitalism.
A black/arab something or other?????????? Wow.
|
|
They call him black, but he looks arab to me, I just don't see the black thing at all. So I comprimised, I heard he was actually half black but whatever.
It's really not that important to me what he is, as he was simply an example of the fact that we have progressed to the point of having non-white people as president. Now if only someother non-white or if he was not-democratic, can't say I'm republican either but I have fewer problems with republicans then I do with democrats.
They call him black, but he looks arab to me, I just don't see the black thing at all. So I comprimised, I heard he was actually half black but whatever.
It's really not that important to me what he is, as he was simply an example of the fact that we have progressed to the point of having non-white people as president. Now if only someother non-white or if he was not-democratic, can't say I'm republican either but I have fewer problems with republicans then I do with democrats.
Wow..... That is racist as all f*+~.
Africans are not all monolithic in ethnicity or colour.
In the North the Egyptian, Tuareg and Berber peoples a lighter skinned, Coptic and Ethiopian peoples are also not as dark skinned (not the colour of your skin makes you better or worse person and NOBODY should be judged based on the colour of their skin).
That is much worse than me mistaking a Canadian for a citizen of the US or god forbid a Scotsman for an Englishman.
Ok Arabs are from Arabia....
Iranians are not Arabs they are Persians
Iraqis not Arabs they are Iraqis or if you want to go old skool Mesopotamians.
Pakistanis not Arabs they are Pakistanis
Turks are not Arabs they are Turks
Egyptians are not Arabs they are Egyptians
Because they wear a turban doesn't make the Moslem - They could be Sikhs, Druze, Hindi anything.
Then you're racist if you use the term "white people" too.
Interesting.
They call him black, but he looks arab to me, I just don't see the black thing at all. So I comprimised, I heard he was actually half black but whatever.
It's really not that important to me what he is, as he was simply an example of the fact that we have progressed to the point of having non-white people as president. Now if only someother non-white or if he was not-democratic, can't say I'm republican either but I have fewer problems with republicans then I do with democrats.
Wow..... That is racist as all f%~*.
Africans are not all monolithic in ethnicity or colour.
In the North the Egyptian, Tuareg and Berber peoples a lighter skinned, Coptic and Ethiopian peoples are also not as dark skinned (not the colour of your skin makes you better or worse person and NOBODY should be judged based on the colour of their skin).
That is much worse than me mistaking a Canadian for a citizen of the US or god forbid a Scotsman for an Englishman.
Ok Arabs are from Arabia....
Iranians are not Arabs they are Persians
Iraqis not Arabs they are Iraqis or if you want to go old skool Mesopotamians.
Pakistanis not Arabs they are Pakistanis
Turks are not Arabs they are Turks
Egyptians are not Arabs they are Egyptians
Because they wear a turban doesn't make the Moslem - They could be Sikhs, Druze, Hindi anything.
|
|
Then you're racist if you use the term "white people" too.
Another useless distinction. 'White' includes maligned minorities like the Italians and the Irish and the Jews and the Arabs and the Persians and, back in the day, before they got broken out into their own category, Hispanics, too!
I suspect the only reason that Arabs / Persians / Jews haven't been reclassified as non-white is because that would mean that Jesus was non-white...
Barring albinos, none of us are really all that 'white' anyway, just as most people of African descent are brown, not black. I grew up living in places like 'Apache Junction' and 'Grand Lake O' the Cherokees,' and I've yet to see an actual *red* native american, although there is a lady here in Nashua with a skin condition who is indeed bright red. I thought it was some sort of all-over henna job the first time I saw her, but it's her actual skin. Bright primary red. Totally cool, and kind of trivializing the yawning cultural chasm between entire races of people who are a few shades browner or a few shades pinker.
Because that was a major step forward. Compared to the absolute monarchies of most of Europe, or even the more limited one of England. We proved that people could rule themselves. Without collapsing into terror and eventually dictatorship as the French Revolution did not long after.
The world would be vary different if the French model had been the only one people had for democracy.
So, then, the French Revolution isn't a good model because Freedom and Liberty led to chopping off the heads of the aristos and their stooges, but the American Revolution is because Freedom and Liberty led to slavery and genocide?
My mind still boggles.
But like I said, I usually am willing to take a more historically relativist position and, today, I am in a better mood.
[bubble bubble bubble]
and
Vive le Galt!
I think all you pinkskins suck, even if your skin isn't pink.
Green pride!
Now, now, now, gentlemen (and Sissyl), we all know what happens when we start throwing around "you're a racist"--the moderators lock the thread and then I am forced to go troll elsewhere.
For the sake of your fellow Paizonians, go easy.
|
|
And if I may be so bold, Set, what's made you start coming into the politroll threads lately? I don't think I've ever seen you in here before the last week or so.
I used to visit OT, way back in the day, but lost interest and minimized it. I blame you for my coming back, as I was reading some of your posts and they led me here.
I'll probably wander off again soon, since I have a signal to noise ratio I prefer to keep tuned more towards 'signal' than 'noise,' but, for now, I'm enjoying using my powers for evil.
Also, seeing as we both have night jobs and both spend too much time on Paizo (well, I do, anyway), why don't we blow this popstand and, I don't know, play some f&~%ing D&D or something?
Not a good time for me. I'm headed to Arizona for a few weeks to get the hell away from this cold. :)
[bubble bubble bubble]
I seem to remember Napoleon smashing feudalism across Europe and tearing down the walls of the Jewish ghettoes.
Compared to killing Indians and enslaving blacks it seems like kind of a wash.
Not a good time for me. I'm headed to Arizona for a few weeks to get the hell away from this cold. :)
Well, have fun!
I am working on a new campaign, but IIRC what you were saying about your shift bid I don't think it will work. But I am certainly keeping you and the rest of the gang in mind. Maybe not so much Midnite the Pink Wolf.
|
|
Not so much because they cut off the heads of the aristos and their stooges, but because they quickly progressed to cutting off everyone's heads and then to installing a new dictator who tried to conquer Europe.
One problem with bloody revolutions is that it's so hard to decide where to stop. Sure, the guys at the front of the crowd got their fill, but the guys at the back of the crowd missed all the fun and still want to lop some heads!
When the mob runs out of obvious enemies, it happily turns on itself. Democracy requires a great enemy (the Nazis, the Soviets, the Chinese, the Middle East), to rally the people against. Without it, civil war is the next step, as the mob turns on itself.