The benefits of colonialism

[CdnFox]

38 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

On another note.. acknowledging that the colonizers of the past were not pleasant to say the least is not racist against them. It is much like walking outside and pointing out that it is 72 degrees outside. Should be punish long distant ancestors of these colonizers that inflicted much pain and suffering? No. 

Well that's a little like saying that Ni@@ers that were brought to america as slaves were pretty dumb and that's not racist.  Wellllllll it kind of would be. First, It lacks context.  They weren't really dumb, they were just products of their immediate environment.  And in any case, the term ni@@er has become a pejorative term to derrogatorily refer to their race.

Same thing. The colonizers of the past, especially in canada, were actually pretty nice to the first nations, and many of the mistakes made were made with the best intentions. The fact that hundreds of years later we view their actions through the lens of todays world doesn't change that. Sure - we would do things different if we were able to go back in time and stop those colonials from making mistakes. But - that doesn't mean they weren't nice.

Sure - some were meaner than others - true no matter what group you're talking about.

And the first nations weren't very nice by todays standards back then - practicing slavery and treating women as tradeable chattel just like  a horse,  and making war on their neighbors and often wiping out or enslaving entire tribes.  Again - looking through today's lens they were aweful, but were they really?

No, saying colonials were not good people or the like is racist given the subtext of today.

[impartialobserver]

34 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Well that's a little like saying that Ni@@ers that were brought to america as slaves were pretty dumb and that's not racist.  Wellllllll it kind of would be. First, It lacks context.  They weren't really dumb, they were just products of their immediate environment.  And in any case, the term ni@@er has become a pejorative term to derrogatorily refer to their race.

Same thing. The colonizers of the past, especially in canada, were actually pretty nice to the first nations, and many of the mistakes made were made with the best intentions. The fact that hundreds of years later we view their actions through the lens of todays world doesn't change that. Sure - we would do things different if we were able to go back in time and stop those colonials from making mistakes. But - that doesn't mean they weren't nice.

Sure - some were meaner than others - true no matter what group you're talking about.

And the first nations weren't very nice by todays standards back then - practicing slavery and treating women as tradeable chattel just like  a horse,  and making war on their neighbors and often wiping out or enslaving entire tribes.  Again - looking through today's lens they were aweful, but were they really?

No, saying colonials were not good people or the like is racist given the subtext of today.

I should have stated that the colonizers that I speak of were those that colonized Africa and South America. It is foolhardy to think that any tribe/group/nation is just going to bow down to strangers and let them have their land. As expected, they were wary, apprehensive, and defensive. The French, Spanish, etc. as a result were none too pleasant. Being friendly, helpful all the while invading, dominating, and subjugating someone is a bit of an oxymoron. Extracting something from someone's territory is always going to be contentious. 


We probably focus on the colonizers because as of today.. most of the colonies are poor and the colonizers are not. Some exceptions. Can we trace back some of the issues that they have today to the actions of the colonizers.. yes. Before you blast away.. not all can or should be. They have had between 50 to 200 years (depending on the nation) to get things right and to results are mixed is an understatement. 

 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

I should have stated that the colonizers that I speak of were those that colonized Africa and South America. It is foolhardy to think that any tribe/group/nation is just going to bow down to strangers and let them have their land. As expected, they were wary, apprehensive, and defensive. The French, Spanish, etc. as a result were none too pleasant. Being friendly, helpful all the while invading, dominating, and subjugating someone is a bit of an oxymoron. Extracting something from someone's territory is always going to be contentious. 


We probably focus on the colonizers because as of today.. most of the colonies are poor and the colonizers are not. Some exceptions. Can we trace back some of the issues that they have today to the actions of the colonizers.. yes. Before you blast away.. not all can or should be. They have had between 50 to 200 years (depending on the nation) to get things right and to results are mixed is an understatement. 

 

No matter what you mean the term 'colonizers' and 'settlers' have become pejorative. Again - it's like saying you were referring to those african Ni@@ers, not the us ones.

I'm sure there were bad people on both sides - historically humans are not peaceful or nice for long anywhere.

[Right To Left]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

No matter what you mean the term 'colonizers' and 'settlers' have become pejorative.

Ahem, shouldn't the terms "colonizers" and "settlers" be pejoratives? Assuming you're colonizing and settling someone else's land without any permission of course.

Quote

I'm sure there were bad people on both sides - historically humans are not peaceful or nice for long anywhere.

I'm sure you're just trying to dodge any moral culpability for your ancestors with the 'both sides do it' dodge! But, in actual fact, a careful study of anthropology will reveal that civilization has made us all worse....to each other, and especially to strangers.

When Columbus sailed across the Atlantic over 5 centuries ago and landed on the small Caribbean island of San Salvador, he remarked to his patrons - Ferdinand and Isabella about how generous, gentle and peaceful the islanders were....and that all he would need would be about another 80 men and "I could enslave them all!" So, who were the savages again?

[CdnFox]

Just now, Right To Left said:

Ahem, shouldn't the terms "colonizers" and "settlers" be pejoratives?

Only to people promoting bigotry and racism.

It's like calling first nations "savages". While perhaps technically accurate at the time the connotations associated with the term are not appropriate.  Yeah sure, they were savages as the dictionary of the day would define it.  But we don't say that and for good reason.

 

Just now, Right To Left said:

I'm sure you're just trying to dodge any moral culpability for your ancestors with the 'both sides do it' dodge!

Which ancestors? What do you think my ancestors did? You must have some idea what MY ancestors did to say that. Unless you're just being a racist bigot.

Just now, Right To Left said:

But, in actual fact, a careful study of anthropology will reveal that civilization has made us all worse....to each other, and especially to strangers.

Well you're sure trying your best to prove that tonite aren't you

Just now, Right To Left said:

When Columbus sailed across the Atlantic over 5 centuries ago and landed on the small Caribbean island of San Salvador, he remarked to his patrons - Ferdinand and Isabella about how generous, gentle and peaceful the islanders were....and that all he would need would be about another 80 men and "I could enslave them all!" So, who were the savages again?

The first nations.  You know - the ones who practiced slavery, warred with the other tribes and killed and wiped them out over territory and often just for fun, sold women like horses, Couldn't control their drinking, etc etc.

But - we don't call them that. I believe i mentioned that earlier.

[Right To Left]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Only to people promoting bigotry and racism.

It's like calling first nations "savages". While perhaps technically accurate at the time the connotations associated with the term are not appropriate.  Yeah sure, they were savages as the dictionary of the day would define it.  But we don't say that and for good reason.

 

Which ancestors? What do you think my ancestors did? You must have some idea what MY ancestors did to say that. Unless you're just being a racist bigot.

Well you're sure trying your best to prove that tonite aren't you

The first nations.  You know - the ones who practiced slavery, warred with the other tribes and killed and wiped them out over territory and often just for fun, sold women like horses, Couldn't control their drinking, etc etc.

But - we don't call them that. I believe i mentioned that earlier.

Seems like the language police have a rightwing edition these days. What's far worse than what you call people is how you treat them! 

If you weren't aware, even societies we would consider primitive today had to have developed property ownership, requiring at least settled agriculture to set up systems of slavery. Just sayin that early hunter-gatherer societies that made up most of the people living all over the world until things started changing about 5000 years ago in the Middle East, were constantly travelling and setting up temporary camps throughout the year. And no hunter-gatherers....even if they lived in more fertile territories could continue living in the same place year-round. The people who started herding livestock around the same time, had to keep their animals moving, so they didn't stay in one place either. 

So, by your own example, the indigenous tribes who were practicing slavery when white men first arrived on our eastern shores, were the most technologically developed and therefore 'civilized' of the inhabitants of the Americas.

That and the other insulting pejoratives you mentioned.....can't hold their liquor, sold women for horses, warring with other tribes etc. etc. etc. are pejoratives that the Spanish, French and English invaders labelled them with, because they may have felt some guilt for committing genocides and forcing people off of their land. So, they felt a need to denigrate the natives living here as something subhuman, and undeserving of the lands they were living on.

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, Right To Left said:

Seems like the language police have a rightwing edition these days.

Uh oh - whats the matter muffin, no intelligent response?

5 minutes ago, Right To Left said:

If you weren't aware, even societies we would consider primitive today had to have developed property ownership, requiring at least settled agriculture to set up systems of slavery.

Nope. Plenty of hunter gatherer types had sysetms of slavery. Although i supposed you might argue that even hunting and gathering is a form of agriculture... sort of....ish.

5 minutes ago, Right To Left said:

 

Just sayin that early hunter-gatherer societies that made up most of the people living all over the world until things started changing about 5000 years ago in the Middle East, were constantly travelling and setting up temporary camps throughout the year. And no hunter-gatherers....even if they lived in more fertile territories could continue living in the same place year-round. The people who started herding livestock around the same time, had to keep their animals moving, so they didn't stay in one place either. 

And this has to do with what we're talking about... how?

5 minutes ago, Right To Left said:

So, by your own example, the indigenous tribes who were practicing slavery when white men first arrived on our eastern shores, were the most technologically developed and therefore 'civilized' of the inhabitants of the Americas.

No, it requires no particular infrastructure to have slaves OR be the most successful. For example the west coast natives had an embarrasment of resources compared to many others and weren't particularly sophisticated, but still kept slaves.  The plains people had less but kept slaves. There's no particular correlation.

5 minutes ago, Right To Left said:

That and the other insulting pejoratives you mentioned...

Didn't mention any.  Those were simple facts. They did trade women the same as horses. THat was just a thing.  They did kill others and had their wars, they did take slaves, etc etc.

The pejorative would be to call them savage for it. WE look at it now as being really bad but in the context of it's time things were different.

Sorry big guy.  Calling people 'sellters' and the like (especially people alive today) is as ignorant as calling first nations savages (which meant basically 'one step up from animlals") especially those alive today.

Its' just ignorant and rude and petulant. The kind of thing chldren who don't know better might do,

 

[impartialobserver]

16 hours ago, CdnFox said:

No matter what you mean the term 'colonizers' and 'settlers' have become pejorative. Again - it's like saying you were referring to those african Ni@@ers, not the us ones.

I'm sure there were bad people on both sides - historically humans are not peaceful or nice for long anywhere.

I guess we have to agree to disagree. Stating simple fact is not racist or perjorative to me. There were colonizers and they did not just walk up and say, "give me control" and the natives just said, "sure".. and they shook hands and got on with life. By stating that John Wayne Gacy was white says nothing bad about whites.

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

I guess we have to agree to disagree. Stating simple fact is not racist or perjorative to me. There were colonizers and they did not just walk up and say, "give me control" and the natives just said, "sure".

That is literally what happened in Canada.

And a war of conquest does not make someone a 'colonizer'. If we're going down that road most first nations people lived on land they took from some other first nations people at some point. So - are all first nations colonizers?

Like i say - the way the word is being used to day it's a pejorative.  There is no "nice" way to call someone a ni@@er.  Even if they are one technically by the meaning of the word.

4 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

 

. and they shook hands and got on with life.

Well that actually did happen as noted. And in many cases people just immigrated into an area and it wasn't 'colonization' at all. And sometimes they fougth and sometimes they didn't.

But there really is no nice way to call someone a 'ni@@er.

[impartialobserver]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

That is literally what happened in Canada.

And a war of conquest does not make someone a 'colonizer'. If we're going down that road most first nations people lived on land they took from some other first nations people at some point. So - are all first nations colonizers?

Like i say - the way the word is being used to day it's a pejorative.  There is no "nice" way to call someone a ni@@er.  Even if they are one technically by the meaning of the word.

Well that actually did happen as noted. And in many cases people just immigrated into an area and it wasn't 'colonization' at all. And sometimes they fougth and sometimes they didn't.

But there really is no nice way to call someone a 'ni@@er.

Yes, I know about Canada. Again, I am referring to Africa and South America.. Those in what we now call West Africa did not just welcome the Europeans in and cede control without a single conflict. By pointing out that it white Europeans that colonized/invaded that area is a statement of fact.. just like saying that the Denver Nuggets are playing in the 2023 NBA Finals. I am white and I feel no guilt over the actions of the French who started their invasion in 1677? Not even a little bit. If folks are thinking that pointing out known objective facts is racist.. maybe they need to not be so reactive.. err. Snowflake-y

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Yes, I know about Canada. Again, I am referring to Africa and South America.. Those in what we now call West Africa did not just welcome the Europeans in and cede control without a single conflict. By pointing out that it white Europeans that colonized/invaded that area is a statement of fact.. just like saying that the Denver Nuggets are playing in the 2023 NBA Finals. I am white and I feel no guilt over the actions of the French who started their invasion in 1677? Not even a little bit. If folks are thinking that pointing out known objective facts is racist.. maybe they need to not be so reactive.. err. Snowflake-y

But you're trying to go from the general to the very specific back to the general again.

Sure - you can refer to a specific event where a colony was actually formed and say those specific people who formed it were colonists.  As in the vikings established a colony in north america.  but to then suggests that all white people who came there forever after are colonists is simply not accurate and it's used as a pejorative.

The british - not the whites - took control of parts of africa in a military occupation and controlled the local area. That has more to do with empire building than colonizing.  We might refer to it as a colonly but really it was just taking over an area to control it as part of the british empire at the time.

So it's not really a statement of fact to say 'whites" colonized it.   But - that's what people now tend to mean - Colony = bad evil white man.  And that simply isn't accurate.  Its become a racist term.

[I am Groot]

On 5/17/2023 at 11:40 AM, impartialobserver said:

Well, colonialism is over. Those nations in Asia, South America, and Africa that were once under the foot of various European nations need to figure out their own way.

What about nations colonized by non-Europeans? Why limit it?

[I am Groot]

On 5/7/2023 at 5:59 PM, herbie said:

The 'benefits' of colonialism being discussed by the descendants of the colonizers, who didn't really get any, while as usual the colonized are without voices.

Why are they without voices? Aren't you being paternalistic and infantilizing them?

On 5/19/2023 at 12:36 AM, eyeball said:

Colonialism is still well within people's living memory.  I have friends my age who were raped in schools run by our governments. 

Really? And every one of them was a native, right? Cuz that never happened to any white children...

[I am Groot]

On 5/19/2023 at 1:04 AM, eyeball said:

It's correcting issues that persist to this day  Most of BC is still unceded territory for which treaties still need to be negotiated. Reconciliation is also about correcting issues before they can even occur - after we're all dead.

All of Canada was conquered. The winners didn't need the losers to sign off on a surrender - especially since the losers were illiterate. 

[I am Groot]

On 5/25/2023 at 3:49 PM, impartialobserver said:

On another note.. acknowledging that the colonizers of the past were not pleasant to say the least is not racist against them. It is much like walking outside and pointing out that it is 72 degrees outside. Should be punish long distant ancestors of these colonizers that inflicted much pain and suffering? No. 

And which of the 'colonized' were pleasant people? Slavery and war were practiced all over Africa by local tribes. Slavery, mass murder and torture were common in the Western Hemisphere before the white man came. India was a brutal, warring shithole before the British colonized it. Who exactly was 'pleasant' back in the day?

[I am Groot]

No one has suggested colonialism was an unparalleled good, nor that it wasn't covered with warts. But refusing to acknowledge the good it did is nothing but a dishonest product of the West's habit of self-abasement before any and all minority that rants at them.Just as a start, if the white men had never come to this hemisphere the natives would still be in the stone age, still brutalizing, murdering, enslaving and torturing each other, and still living a hand-to-mouth existence and dying young.

[eyeball]

54 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Really? And every one of them was a native, right? Cuz that never happened to any white children...

Correct, no white children were being colonized.

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Correct, no white children were being colonized.

Well that's absolutely untrue actually

Forced attendance at school was definitely a thing for white immigrants who werne't british or french (such as russians or the like) and they deeply resented it and there was much uproar about it.

So for sure absolutely without a doubt they were.  You are 100 percent wrong.

But more importantly you were aware of what his point was, and i guess you agreed with it seeing as you felt the need to dodge it.

[herbie]

Stop making shit up as if it was true. Forced attendance at school was and still IS up to a certain age for everyone.

Or are you gonna claim they were forced because home schooling in Ukranian or Farsi wasn't gonna get them anywhere once they went outside?

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Well that's absolutely untrue actually

Forced attendance at school was definitely a thing for white immigrants who werne't british or french (such as russians or the like) and they deeply resented it and there was much uproar about it.

So for sure absolutely without a doubt they were.  You are 100 percent wrong.

But more importantly you were aware of what his point was, and i guess you agreed with it seeing as you felt the need to dodge it.

No, I disagree with his point based on comparing the rape of indigenous kids with white kids. It's the same silly argument people make when they say indigenous colonists came from Siberia or that native people owned slaves, therefore everyone's equal and everyone should just get over it. I suspect you'd be laughed out of Supreme Court for trying to fly these arguments past it.

Pointing at the compulsory schooling of ordinary kids as evidence of an institutionalized force that treated everyone as badly as many indigenous kids is just as silly.

That said the nuns who taught at the school my wife attended tied her left hand behind her back or hit it with a stick to break her of the habit of using it.

As for me, I was sent to free school where the Hell's Angels provided security. That was actually a lot of fun.

[CdnFox]

7 minutes ago, eyeball said:

No, I disagree with his point based on comparing the rape of indigenous kids with white kids. It's the same silly argument people make when they say indigenous colonists came from Siberia or that native people owned slaves, therefore everyone's equal and everyone should just get over it. I suspect you'd be laughed out of Supreme Court for trying to fly these arguments past it.

It's nothing even remotely similar.

It's perfectly valid - rape of children was NOT a gov't sanctioned thing in the slighest, and it happened to people inside schools of every type.  And still does.  So to suggest that somehow the first nations are special in that respect is  not plausable.

Fun fact - right now first nations communities experience much higher levels of child rape than any other segment of society. When this was noted the first nations pleaded that the rapists not be tried under the normal laws because they should be forgiven for it because they're oppressed.

Let that sink in a minute.

7 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Pointing at the compulsory schooling of ordinary kids as evidence of an institutionalized force that treated everyone as badly as many indigenous kids is just as silly.

it is precisely the same. There are no "regular" kids.  These are kids who don't speak english, aren't from the same culture, have different religious and societal beliefs, and are being forced to assimilate.

You cannot possibly claim they are different.

7 minutes ago, eyeball said:

That said the nuns who taught at the school my wife attended tied her left hand behind her back or hit it with a stick to break her of the habit of using it.

Sounds about right. My 80 year old french neighbor grew up in a quebec orphanage.  He reads the accounts of the first nations in residential schools and he's like "yeah? THats how it is for everyone right?"  It was every bit as bad.

Which doesn't make what the first nations people went through better somehow.  But - it was hardly all about them. It was the times. Thankfully times change.

7 minutes ago, eyeball said:

As for me, I was sent to free school where the Hell's Angels provided security. That was actually a lot of fun.

Explains your lack of education  (HA!!!    JK. )

[herbie]

3 hours ago, I am Groot said:

if the white men had never come to this hemisphere the natives would still be in the stone age, still brutalizing, murdering, enslaving and torturing each other, and still living a hand-to-mouth existence and dying young.

Congratulations

You have just won the George C Wallace Award for the most blatantly racist post in this entire thread.

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, herbie said:

Congratulations

You have just won the George C Wallace Award for the most blatantly racist post in this entire thread.

You find the truth racist?

That is demonstrably a truth. They hadn't even discovered metal yet.  They did brutalize each other and frequently committed genocide.  They kept slaves and sold women. And had done so for thousands of years. What would make you think they still woudln't be?

[eyeball]

11 hours ago, CdnFox said:

So to suggest that somehow the first nations are special in that respect is  not plausable.

Good luck getting the Supreme Court to buy that argument.

[eyeball]

11 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Explains your lack of education  (HA!!!    JK. )

Compared to the crap you were obviously taught? I've done just fine thanks.