Jump to content

Is this really racism


Recommended Posts

I think the problem which TaxMe alludes to is that we are very quick to cast blame where appropriate to various established groups. However, when that same group is responsible for something good, that's often completely ignored as we focus solely on the fault. And it applies at the individual level as well. 

Men do a lot of bad things. No doubt about it. More than women. But they also do a lot of good things. 
The same can be said of white people, the Catholic church, and plenty of other large institutions. 
Take Bill Gates as an example. He's likely the most generous person in history, but there are still people that find nothing but fault with him.

You can be good for an entire lifetime, but a few seconds of bad erases all of it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 23/11/2017 at 12:38 PM, Jariax said:

I think the problem which TaxMe alludes to is that we are very quick to cast blame where appropriate to various established groups. However, when that same group is responsible for something good, that's often completely ignored as we focus solely on the fault. And it applies at the individual level as well. 

Men do a lot of bad things. No doubt about it. More than women. But they also do a lot of good things. 
The same can be said of white people, the Catholic church, and plenty of other large institutions. 
Take Bill Gates as an example. He's likely the most generous person in history, but there are still people that find nothing but fault with him.

You can be good for an entire lifetime, but a few seconds of bad erases all of it. 

There is also a tendency among some groups to idealize natives and minorities, as though they are perfected human beings who are purely victims of the evil "whites". A more detailed read of history reveals there never was a Noble Savage.

However, I don't want to appear insensitive or one-sided. My heart goes out to the poorest ones at the very bottom of the food chain. They are as much a victim of exploitation by their own leaders today, the Chiefs, as they are by colonialism years ago. 

Edited by OftenWrong
sp.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/20/2017 at 8:25 PM, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

This was fun but it's getting old, I'm hoping you're just leading me on. 

All the best to you and yours Taxme :)

I was serious. The white man did stop the Indians from killing one another once and for all. Wasn't that a good thing that old whitey did? Yes/no?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/28/2017 at 11:31 PM, taxme said:

I was serious. The white man did stop the Indians from killing one another once and for all. Wasn't that a good thing that old whitey did? Yes/no?  

More than 12,000 aboriginal Canadians fought for old whitey during WWI, WWII, and the Korean war; over 500 of them died. Today there are about 2,500 aboriginal Canadians serving in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

More than 12,000 aboriginal Canadians fought for old whitey during WWI, WWII, and the Korean war; over 500 of them died. Today there are about 2,500 aboriginal Canadians serving in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Ok, but you still did not answer my question? Why? 

I wonder as to how many white Canadian soldiers died in all those wars? I am pretty sure it is much higher than 500. There are more white men and women in the armed services. So, what the hell is your bloody point? :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, taxme said:

Ok, but you still did not answer my question? Why? 

I wonder as to how many white Canadian soldiers died in all those wars? I am pretty sure it is much higher than 500. There are more white men and women in the armed services. So, what the hell is your bloody point? :rolleyes:

There are far more white people in the population of the country. Natives have served this country well and with honor. Unfortunately, when they returned from the conflicts overseas, and probably due to people like you, they were denied the services provided to whites, and sent back onto the reserve. Now what's your bloody point? 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On ‎10‎/‎28‎/‎2017 at 9:07 AM, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

WOW! You must have a whole different definition of "civilized". 

The white men virtually wiped them out and then tried to knock the "Indian" out of the rest of them. 

BTW, how do you know how they lived before white men showed up? 

Were there ever savages in the world? Barbarians? If the North American natives were neither of these things In what way would savages or barbarians have differed from the North American natives?

Btw, I don't regard most of the Europeans of that day as being particularly well-civilized. They were, for the most part, uneducated, oafish, crude, ignorant and almost entirely focused on the security of finding food and shelter for them and their families. Not much different from the natives, you might say. But the natives lacked the organizational, technical and scientific knowledge of the societies which supplanted them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎10‎/‎31‎/‎2017 at 9:19 AM, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

You need to go right back to when white man first invaded North America. 

Imagine someone shows up on your doorstep and says "Your property is mine, you can have a little room out in the yard. You are not recognized as a citizen here, your children will be taken away and will not be allowed to practice any features of your culture. We will do this for generations, we will throw you food, shelter, to quench our guilt a bit but we will continue piping our culture into "your" home. We will continue to insult and quash any attempt by you to move ahead through racism because we are "civilized" and you are a savage." 

Pretty kind-hearted compared to most conquests. Usually when one nation conquered another they either slaughtered or drove off everyone else, or else the conquered were absorbed into the successor nation and had to surrender all vestiges of their own culture and language.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎11‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 6:28 PM, taxme said:

  What part of "genocide" don't you understand? 

Is it still genocide if you do it to yourself? If you build a culture around consumer goods and  pleasure free of responsibilities where children are an unnecessary and expensive inconvenience to the point where you stop having enough children to replace yourself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Why is it convenient and necessary to have children? I didn't have my three kids out of any need, other than maybe the experience and satisfaction of raising them.

In poorer countries people who don't have children don't have anyone to take care of them when they grow old and sick and infirm. Thus it's necessary to have children there. In poorer countries, in rural areas, you need children to help work your farm as you get older, or if you're in a small business to help you there. It's also part of the culture, expected of all couples, and heavy pressure is put on them from family and peers. This is particularly so of countries with very patriarchal cultures, where your fertility is considered part of the respect people will have for you. 

In Canada, that respect is not here for people who have kids, of course, and people expect the government to take care of them when they get old (and I suspect many are going to be radically disappointed there). Even today elders without children fare far worse than those with children in almost every respect.

But we're a 'live for today' culture, and couples want to have shiny toys and go on vacations down south and don't want the inconvenience of children. That's particularly so of upper middle class and wealthier couples, because the woman has a career she doesn't want to see repeatedly interrupted by kids. Poorer couples tend to have more kids. I suspect this is largely because the woman isn't terribly concerned about her 'career' assuming she works at all, and they're not likely to be doing much travelling anyway, so kids are less inconvenient.

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Argus said:

Were there ever savages in the world? Barbarians? If the North American natives were neither of these things In what way would savages or barbarians have differed from the North American natives?

Btw, I don't regard most of the Europeans of that day as being particularly well-civilized. They were, for the most part, uneducated, oafish, crude, ignorant and almost entirely focused on the security of finding food and shelter for them and their families. Not much different from the natives, you might say. But the natives lacked the organizational, technical and scientific knowledge of the societies which supplanted them.

They were not by our standards but I say they were much more civilized than the natives. Europe evolved out of the dark ages, these people were practically still neolithic. Yes Europeans had the technology, machinery, weaponry but they also had the basic morals. In fact terrible violence has been committed throughout history by all parties, including among the highly mythical Noble Savages. Looking back in time you can see they had the same problems that we still have today... we still need to fight back and kill the barbarians, sometimes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

They were not by our standards but I say they were much more civilized than the natives. Europe evolved out of the dark ages, these people were practically still neolithic. Yes Europeans had the technology, machinery, weaponry but they also had the basic morals. In fact terrible violence has been committed throughout history by all parties, including among the highly mythical Noble Savages. Looking back in time you can see they had the same problems that we still have today... we still need to fight back and kill the barbarians, sometimes.

I don't know about the morals part. I would not say the morals of Europeans were any better than that of the natives here. In some respects they would be worse because there was a more established monetary system which led to the accumulation of wealth and greed. I would agree that at least the higher levels of European society were more cultured, civilized and knowledgeable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Argus said:

I don't know about the morals part. I would not say the morals of Europeans were any better than that of the natives here. In some respects they would be worse because there was a more established monetary system which led to the accumulation of wealth and greed. I would agree that at least the higher levels of European society were more cultured, civilized and knowledgeable. 

The morals part was at least in principle. Very hard to be moral when barbarians are at your door, or in your face. Basic tenets that differentiate western civilization from all others in the world:
thou shalt not kill
turn the other cheek
Forgive them father

As compared to much harsher views promoted in every other culture in the world today. There simply is no other culture more evolved along these principle lines.
One example of culture shockis the reaction of horror of Conquistadores who were invited to observe certain Aztec ritual ceremonies. These ceremonies were very common among South American native tribes, and a careful study of history finds them in practice among North American tribes as well.

What I find problematic today is we place judgement upon people of the past based on our most recent, post- neo-modernist-revisionist values, to the extent that people who were formerly heroes who built a nation during a time of war are rather seen as monstrous. But that alone is not the most interesting part, but also that their political contribution is now to be reviled, their work, and by implication their cause. This is used as evidence that westerners are all complicit in participating in crimes against humanity. It's that kind of twisted logic confuses many people, especially on the left.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

They were not by our standards but I say they were much more civilized than the natives. Europe evolved out of the dark ages, these people were practically still neolithic. Yes Europeans had the technology, machinery, weaponry but they also had the basic morals. In fact terrible violence has been committed throughout history by all parties, including among the highly mythical Noble Savages.

Yes we did have morals and we were criminals according to the civilized standards those morals set and we knew full well that what we were doing was wrong but we did it anyways.  Heck we were so civilized we even left a paper trail for natives to use in court against us.  

Quote

Looking back in time you can see they had the same problems that we still have today... we still need to fight back and kill the barbarians, sometimes.

Speaking of mythology you make it sound like the natives attacked us.

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

The morals part was at least in principle. Very hard to be moral when barbarians are at your door, or in your face. Basic tenets that differentiate western civilization from all others in the world:
thou shalt not kill
turn the other cheek
Forgive them father

Observed more in theory than in reality in that time, unfortunately.

53 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

What I find problematic today is we place judgement upon people of the past based on our most recent, post- neo-modernist-revisionist values, to the extent that people who were formerly heroes who built a nation during a time of war are rather seen as monstrous. But that alone is not the most interesting part, but also that their political contribution is now to be reviled, their work, and by implication their cause. This is used as evidence that westerners are all complicit in participating in crimes against humanity. It's that kind of twisted logic confuses many people, especially on the left.

Here I agree with you, though I'd add it's also due to a piss poor education system which disdains history. The only history most westerners know is their own, and not much of that. And given the way progressives have flocked to academia (because it's easier and provides tenure) has ensured their ideological views - generally anti-western and anti-capitalist, slant that teaching. Few know anything about the cruelty and barbarity of old China or the middle east or india or, for that matter, here. Oh, they'll probably know the Aztecs practiced human sacrifice, but they don't imbue that with the same moral failing of say, white people enslaving blacks (The Azktecs also kept slaves, btw). And while native 'nations' routinely made war on each other to the point of extermination, well, that's not really in the history books in any detail, now is it. I mean, hey might have invented scalping but there's no notes promising a bounty for them to be read indignantly on television.

The old world was rough, far beyond the puny imaginations of shallow progressives who have never known hunger, danger or want. So they feel safe in impugning the morality of people from generations past, secure in their belief that were THEY alive back then somehow or other they'd be different.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

And you make it sound like they never did. Perhaps they were distracted while cutting the other tribesmens living hearts out, before eating them.

And you (try) to make it sound like Europeans didn't steal their children to ram our religion down their throat, and bugger them for good measure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Omni said:

And you (try) to make it sound like Europeans didn't steal their children to ram our religion down their throat, and bugger them for good measure.

I never.  I'm sure you mean some Europeans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

And you make it sound like they never did. Perhaps they were distracted while cutting the other tribesmens living hearts out, before eating them.

Some certainly retaliated but as you've demonstrated in other threads you treat the term retaliate and attack as the same thing when it suits or doesn't suit your point.

You're doing the same thing with the terms barbarians and natives now.  I'm surprised you haven't pleaded that we had no choice but to slaughter the native barbarians for retaliating against our method of civilizing them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

What I find problematic today is we place judgement upon people of the past based on our most recent, post- neo-modernist-revisionist values, to the extent that people who were formerly heroes who built a nation during a time of war are rather seen as monstrous.

What makes your opinions and arguments so grotesque is that you justify the monsters by vilifying their victims - we were merely defending ourselves from barbarians after all.

We had no choice...wah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, eyeball said:

What makes your opinions and arguments so grotesque is that you justify the monsters by vilifying their victims - we were merely defending ourselves from barbarians after all.

We had no choice...wah.

You've got the wrong quote for the point you're making, which further exemplifies what I said about you before. You are definitely not one of the Literati...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,713
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...