The Bastardization of Western History and Culture

[Norse]

LOL, it's not male pattern baldness!

It's VTMarik! He's out of control!!!!

[Gold Knight]

LOL, it's not male pattern baldness!

It's VTMarik! He's out of control!!!!

Dont worry, i know how to calm "his" type. Just give em some shiny beads, lol.

Just kidding VT.

[Norse]

LOL, it's not male pattern baldness!

It's VTMarik! He's out of control!!!!

Dont worry, i know how to calm "his" type. Just give em some shiny beads, lol.

Just kidding VT.

LOL, I didnt know he could get broadband in his wigwam....

[vtmarik]

LOL, it's not male pattern baldness!

It's VTMarik! He's out of control!!!!

Dont worry, i know how to calm "his" type. Just give em some shiny beads, lol.

Just kidding VT.

LOL, I didnt know he could get broadband in his wigwam....

I got it all, satellite TV, broadband!

*plays with the shiny beads* Oooh, shiny.

[Norse]

[cawck mongler]

So... because there was slave trade on a huige scale which created a further reason for going to war against other tribes and then selling the prisoners, slave trade is morally not so bad as it's been thought to be?
I'll think about it.

What does Hitler have to do with colonies? That's truly beyond me.

Read what I wrote please. I made it clear that all cultures are flawed and have done bad things, and that Europe was no worse then anywhere else. Today you have African Americans and the lot making noise about how they were mistreated by the white man, when in reality, they, like all cultures, mistreated themselves as well as others, to much blame is placed on Europe, just because they made the biggest impact on history.

Like someone mentioned, WW2 was caused by the dismantlement of the German empire, the placement of a democratic regime in Germany (which further curbed Germany's imperial ambitions) and the Treaty of Versailles. Think about it this way, if Germany was still reaping the wealth of its colonies, would the nazi party have come to power?

What a brilliant post by cawck mongler. I hadn't realised most of his points, but I did know that Britain's economy went down the toilet after we lost our colonies.

Here's another point:
Would Africa still be suffering from poverty, civil war and the like, if it was still owned by European countries? I think not!

Yes, if Britain kept its colonies, the wealth from them could be used to fuel the advancement of mankind, as opposed to funding some psychopaths genocide in Africa, as its doing now.

If Africa was still owned by Europe, it would still be poor, but it would be secure and the famine, rape and whatever else that plagues it today wouldn't be happening.

now that is an interesting post, if the colonisation had not occurred then obviously Africa wouldn't be so bad now, but what if african countries had remained subservient to European powers?

Yes it would, without foreign influence from their far away neighbours, they'd never industrialise and would be at the mercy of their nearby neighbours (as the technology would slowly trickle down into the African continent, and the places that did lots of trade with Europe and America would be very advanced, and could easily dominate their neighbours and start their own empires).

I agree that we probably could have made the area a far better place by staying economically, but socially?

You can't really think that Africa has a good society in general? If Europe stayed, there wouldn't be the rape, murder and injustice there is now, in fact, European ideals such as universal suffrage could've become part of African society.

I don't believe the European powers should still own the African nations, but they should have stayed behind and helped them out after they got independance, rather then letting them run it by themselves.

They did drop the ball when they decolonized, yes, but just another reason not to do it in the first place, amirite?

I believe they tried. But the countries thought ''YES WE ARE FREE TO DO WHAT WE WANT'' and just went for it. Often adopting bad ideas such as communism and inward looking trade policies like india did right after we left..... we all know that didnt work out too well for anyone.....

Stable government weren't set up and most places fell into turmoil, as their governments were inept and couldn't keep control.

Given the tens (and probably hundreds) of millions of people who have been killed by European colonialism, either directly or indirectly, deliberately or otherwise, over the last five centuries, it probably wouldn't be surprising if people were reticent about trumpeting the dominance of European civilization over all other forms.

I'm just surprised that you think Europe's achievements are "looked down on" - this reminds me of a pronouncement that the British PM, Gordon Brown, made before he became leader - that "Britain should stop apologising for its empire." Neither the British nor any other Europeans have ever "apologised" for their empires in any meaningful sense.

Or are you objecting to the fact that Westerners have gradually stopped seeing themselves as morally, racially, or otherwise, superior to peoples in the rest of the world over the last century?

And how many people would've died under their native governments? Probably a lot more then Europe killed. Remember that Europe brought peace to the regions they took over, and helped to industrialise them, preventing war, starvation and shortages of materials.

You just implied that Britain should apoligise for its empire, meaning that yes, most or atleast some people look down on colonialism (probably most though.

And no, I'm talking about how the west has gradually given up their dominance in the world, which will no doubt allow China to assume its role. I'd rather have America and Europe in charge then a place that forcefully harvests its own citizens organs, like communist China. I'm also talking about how western governments take so many steps to accommodate foreigners. For example, Iraq, if the US was more heavy handed then I'd be willing to bet that the insurgency would've died down already. Look at post world war Japan, instead of pussyfooting (thanks to whoever coined 'pussification':)) around, they just went in their, set up a government and said 'this is how you're going to do things'. Today Japan has the worlds second largest economy, thanks to America not taking the shit they're taking in Iraq (where they pretty much just sit around and do nothing).

Not hundreds of thousands, not possibly millions, but definitely tens of millions of Africans were displaced. Also, most informed people are well aware that most of the African slaves were handed over willingly by other Africans. I'm not clear how this absolves the Europeans of anything?

Both Africans and Europeans were guilty, but only Europe is really blamed, even though a lot of people are aware that Africans were very involved to. And like I said, the slaves would be killed or sent to slavery somewhere else.

So to summarise- at the time colonialism brought more good then harm, Europe would've done best to keep its power to some extent across the globe and in the future the west will have to be willing to do more if they're going to stay ahead of the game.

Also, I think that as most countries governments have changed to democracies and relinquished their power, corporations have been able to gain some significant power in those countries. For example in the US, all politicians in power are backed by corporate sponsors, who lobby to keep the war in Iraq going. I believe that one of the reasons its being so prolonged, is because the arms industry (Blackwater, all that) is encouraging the US to be so lightfisted so that they can continue to sell arms to the military and make more money off of it. Sorry for bringing Iraq into this, but it was one of the things I forgot to mention in my first post and it directly ties into western governments giving up their power, and how their citiznes (us) are going to get screwed by groups that are willing to use their power (corporations, China).

[Guiscard]

So to summarise- at the time colonialism brought more good then harm, Europe would've done best to keep its power to some extent across the globe and in the future the west will have to be willing to do more if they're going to stay ahead of the game.

I've made anti-colonial arguments many times on this board in terms of what advantages/disadvantages the colonisers gave, and I don't feel the need to do it again here, but I would like to ask you a question...

Do we have a moral right to impose our rule on a people over whom we have no claim other than superior economic or military power?

Surely all debate on benefit / harm (and you are wrong in your assessment) is entirely pointless given how colonialism in general was and is still entirely wrong and illegal!

If, in the course of a mass murder, the criminal gives away fifty pounds to each family member of those murdered it doesn't make him any less culpable, or the murder any less wrong does it?

[NOHIBBERTNO]

Do we have a moral right to impose our rule on a people over whom we have no claim other than superior economic or military power?

Most certainly. Does a Lion have the right to lead the pack and have all the kids just because he is stronger, faster and more intelligen than the other lions? YES. It is the way the rest of the world works so why can humans not do it as well?

[cawck mongler]

I've made anti-colonial arguments many times on this board in terms of what advantages/disadvantages the colonisers gave, and I don't feel the need to do it again here, but I would like to ask you a question...

Do we have a moral right to impose our rule on a people over whom we have no claim other than superior economic or military power?

Surely all debate on benefit / harm (and you are wrong in your assessment) is entirely pointless given how colonialism in general was and is still entirely wrong and illegal!

If, in the course of a mass murder, the criminal gives away fifty pounds to each family member of those murdered it doesn't make him any less culpable, or the murder any less wrong does it?

Back then there weren't any democracies, so it was one dictator (or monarch rather) over another, nothing wrong with that. I'd also like to know how I'm wrong in what I said about Europe making scientific progress through colonialism? After all, places that were left alone never went through industrialisation, it was only places directly affected by the colonial powers.

What if the people the murderer killed staged a rebellion against him, or rather, the natives ruling elite staged the rebellion in order to increase their own wealth?

[Norse]

The one massive problem with this arguement, guiscard, is that it is not WE, ie the white europeans who have commited these atrocities...It is the aristocratic power-mongerers in who govern the white western world who have been the sole benefactors in any example you care to give.

I havent been involve in the slave trade

I havent colonised a different country by force

I havent commited ultra violent acts...

But I want to have my own identity, and do not want self hating, piss soaked, bleeding heart liberal, white trash RAPING me of this, in the name of some malicious attempt of socialist/marxist skull-duggery.

choke on my big, fat white cock, and taste my superior semen.

[muy_thaiguy]

The one massive problem with this arguement, guiscard, is that it is not WE, ie the white europeans who have commited these atrocities...It is the aristocratic power-mongerers in who govern the white western world who have been the sole benefactors in any example you care to give.

I havent been involve in the slave trade

I havent colonised a different country by force

I havent commited ultra violent acts...

But I want to have my own identity, and do not want self hating, piss soaked, bleeding heart liberal, white trash RAPING me of this, in the name of some malicious attempt of socialist/marxist skull-duggery.

choke on my big, fat white cock, and taste my superior semen.

[Norse]

It is simply a case of circumstances here...

caucasians...(named as residents of caucasia, and during the time of the great mesopotamians, during which the first ever written work was produced...gilgamesh) flourished in all parts of the world, but my own personal theory is that we developed our superior intelluct during the time when we were effectively kicked out of the middle east region by rogue tribes (at the time we had developed the compassionate and protective urges for family...as some other cultures are yet to develop), and thus we moved into the barron and harsh climate of post ice age northern europe....


The ability to havest crops and build a sustainable living in such a harsh environment only goes to show the dedication to survival that caucasians have....evoloution, of course requires the evolved group to be placed under hard circumstances...thus creating a learning intelligent creeed.

Africa, once upon a time was a thriving, bustling cacaphony of easy living and abundant life.......now the resources have gone...due to lack of care/intelligence.

I am glad that I am a part of the breed who were bothered about their safety, and thus thrived, as opposed to a breed that sat on their asses, got fat then realised the food has run out.....

well, I suppose the white man will always bail out certain cultures....despite the fact that I reckon we should leave them to die....but thats my opinion

[MeDeFe]

Norse, I have never seen a bigger heap of bullshit since history lessons in grade 9 or so when we went through the third Reich, when people took those theories seriously and based their politics around them.
You might want to invent a time machine so you can move into a time better suited to your ideas, like the late 19th or early 20th century.

Do you even know what the word "benefactor" means? I think you were looking for the word "beneficiary".



@ NOHIBBERTNO: So do I have the right to kick you in the head and take anything I want from you just because I'm stronger and can do it?

[hulmey]

Norse i thought you were un-employed

[Norse]

Unemployed?

ha! I wish.

And to Madefe....


....da dum de dum, da dum de dum, dum de dum de dum, da dum, de dum, da dum de dum, dum de dum de dum....

Ive spent a minute in what seems to be your general pattern of thought, and I don't like it

[daddy1gringo]

...my own personal theory is that we developed our superior intelluct....

I am glad that I am a part of the breed who were bothered about their safety, and thus thrived, as opposed to a breed that sat on their asses, got fat then realised the food has run out.....

Norse, I have to say you caught me by surprise with this post. I agreed with what you were saying until this Aryan supremacist tirade. I grew up in the north of the U.S. where I saw it clearly demonstrated that African-Americans are the same inside and capable of the same achievements intellectually as caucasians given the same opportunities. The difference is not racial/biological.

I can only hope you were just trying to spice up the dialogue, and didn't really mean a lot of it. but just in case I will proceed on the assumption that you were completely serious.

Let me present another explanation for the superior progress of the western European culture, and the benefits to other cultures of being influenced by it. The Judeo-Christian, or Biblical world view. We believe that the universe was created with purpose by an intelligent God who created it to operate according to certain laws. From that follows the idea that an intelligent mind can discover those laws and make them work for you. From it comes the scientific method.

The world-view of native Americans and native Africans was chaos. A multitude of spiritual forces all interacted and struggled with one another. From that follows superstition and shamanism. Many of the natives died out from diseases, some caught from the europeans, before any Europeans might have killed them on purpose, because outside of a few lucky discoveries of healing herbs, their medicine consisted of shaking a rattle and dancing around a fire. The ideas of germs and genetics were discovered in europe, by monks.

The technology resulting from such such scientific thought also brought advances in agriculture, weapons, transportation and sanitation, allowing Europe to dominate and colonize.

The Biblical world-view also fostered democracy. As seen with the kings of Israel, notably Saul and David, even the King is subject to the law, because all men are subject to God. Also every man (and woman) has value, because all are created in the image of God. Ideally, as Francis Schaeffer said, the humblest farmer with a Bible in his hand holds more authority than any king or bishop.

This is not to say that all of the exploring and colonizing Europeans were acting as Christians, obviously many were not. What I am saying is that it was the world-view of "Christendom" that allowed it to dominate, and that benefitted the colonized to whatever degree they benefitted.

[MeDeFe]

I think you overestimate the bible, ever heard of absolutism? It was based (roughly) on the idea that the king is gods chosen representative to take care of worldly matters (as opposed to spiritual ones). Absolutism is hardly a democratic system.

When you say "we believe" you really mean "I believe", you don't know what other people believe, especially ones who lived several centuries ago. In many cases nature is seen as corrupted at worst and as of no importance at best. Because it's material. Instead one should concetrate on the spiritual side, prayer and contemplation. This is hardly a beneficial climate for practical research and natural sciences. In the middle ages, about 1000 years after the bible became official, hygiene was practically unheard of, during the plagues jews were at times targeted as the cause of it because they tended to escape infections because of their rules when to wash, they were simply cleaner than the christians. Even in the 18th and 19th century washing was something you didn't do, especially not if you were rich (and subsequently also educated), put on some more makeup and occasionally rub it off with some linen. Hygienic? Not really. The biggest advance in weaponry came from china, gunpowder. As for transportation, would you care to name one thing more advanced than using some animal to pull a cart or using the wind at sea (high-tech!) from BEFORE enlightenment? You know, when reason became fashionable and doubting only meant you'd be in trouble and not in deadly trouble.

I must confess I know little about pre-colonialization african and native american healing methods. However, if you think that magic consists of nothing more than throwing herbs at a person until he gets well or dies and making weird noises at the same time, you're mistaken.
I took a class on "Magic, Medicine and Science in medieval England" a while back. And it turned out that the herbal remedies dating back to pre-christian times were anything but random. The only cases where what you described was tried was in absolutely hopeless cases like 'bite' (Old English, pronounce "bee-teh", probably cancer). Do you suppose that only tribes that would eventually become christian could discover these things?


Also, how did monks discover germs and genetics? According to Wikipedia, the oldest theory stating that living organisms cause diseases is in a Hindu religious work.

[d.gishman]

It is simply a case of circumstances here...

caucasians... developed our superior intelluct during the time when we were effectively kicked out of the middle east region... we had developed the compassionate and protective urges for family

Africa, once upon a time was a thriving, bustling cacaphony of easy living and abundant life.......now the resources have gone...due to lack of care/intelligence.

I am glad that I am a part of the breed who were bothered about their safety, and thus thrived, as opposed to a breed that sat on their asses, got fat then realised the food has run out.....

well, I suppose the white man will always bail out certain cultures....despite the fact that I reckon we should leave them to die....but thats my opinion

What the heck? Are you some sort of crazy white supremist or something? You say caucasians developed "superior intelluct" [sic], and that statement is funny in itself.

About africa - "lack of ... intelligence" -- Africa's resources aren't tapped at all yet, and poverty doesn't mean that they lack intelligence.

"I suppose the white man will always bail out certain cultures....despite the fact that I reckon we should leave them to die" - I'm not even going to comment on this - let's just refect upon the absurdity of this statement

[luns101]

choke on my big, fat white cock, and taste my superior semen.

Remember the good old days, Guis...when it was just me annoying you with atheist conspiracies!

I think this takes it to a whole new level...perhaps the Flame Wars.

[vtmarik]

choke on my big, fat white cock, and taste my superior semen.

Remember the good old days, Guis...when it was just me annoying you with atheist conspiracies!

I think this takes it to a whole new level...perhaps the Flame Wars.

Quite likely, though I am hoping that he's kidding. It's satire, right Norse?

I don't have to lynch you with your pointy hat do I? Because I will if I have to.

[luns101]

Quite likely, though I am hoping that he's kidding. It's satire, right Norse?

I hope so as well.

[Titanic]

Does a Lion have the right to lead the pack and have all the kids just because he is stronger, faster and more intelligen than the other lions? YES. It is the way the rest of the world works so why can humans not do it as well?

We are not animals. We have ethics and morals and laws. Out life isn dedicated to mating, catching food and proving our strength.

Back then there weren't any democracies, so it was one dictator (or monarch rather) over another, nothing wrong with that. I'd also like to know how I'm wrong in what I said about Europe making scientific progress through colonialism?

Britain was a democracy. Parliament had much more power then Queen Victoria. France was a democracy during the "Scramble for Africa". These were the two biggest colonial powers in Africa and North America, and Britain had the largest empire the world has ever seen.

Exactly what scientific discoveries were made through colonialism. Most were made at home in the native countries.

The ability to havest crops and build a sustainable living in such a harsh environment only goes to show the dedication to survival that caucasians have

Europe is naturally suited for growing crops and farming. Wtf are you on about? European ancestors had one of the easiest times gathering food, as compared to SE Asia where there are floods and monsoons, Africa where there are droughts, Australia where there is limited space, and in the Arctic Circle where it is freezing most the year and they have their work cut out catching food.

Africa, once upon a time was a thriving, bustling cacaphony of easy living and abundant life.......now the resources have gone...due to lack of care/intelligence.

The resources have not gone. Africa has huge amounts of untouched raw materials, probably the most of any continent, maybe except Antartica.

When exactly did Africa have a thriving economy? And easy living? And abundant life?

I am glad that I am a part of the breed who were bothered about their safety, and thus thrived, as opposed to a breed that sat on their asses, got fat then realised the food has run out.....

Is this the same breed who would have several wars every century for over a thousand years? The one which fought and raped and murdered and pillaged the whole continent for hundreds of years? The one which massacred the Jewish communities for a thousand years, and murdered hundreds of millions of people whilst they forced their ideals onto them? The one which had witch hunts and drowned people, but if they didn die they were then burned for being a witch?

What a great breed, yer...

[The1exile]

When exactly did Africa have a thriving economy? And easy living? And abundant life?

Always. Look at ancient egypt for starters. Pinnacle of civilisation for over 3,000 years; obviously they must have had something going for them.

[cawck mongler]

To the guy who says Britain-France were monarchies:

Yes, but what's your point? You said people have a right to choosing their own ruler or something, but they pretty much only got to choose from monarchs on their home turf (I use choose very loosely, as the most they could do to 'choose' who they were ruled by, would be to get conscripted into their army). They would've been better off with the Western Democracies, strengthening my points about pro colonization.

And reread my other posts, I said that the wealth gotten from colonialism fueled the scientific advances in Europe, and if the wealth had stayed in the hands of local warlords it would only be used to kill more people. Without colonialism you'd still be some serf working 20 hours and still starving to death, so shut up about all this' the white mans the devil' bullshit.

You said you had all these bad points about colonialism, so lets hear them.

To theexile: Ancient Egyptians were white, seriously.

[d.gishman]

When exactly did Africa have a thriving economy? And easy living? And abundant life?

Always. Look at ancient egypt for starters. Pinnacle of civilisation for over 3,000 years; obviously they must have had something going for them.

yeah, back when europe was suffering from the plague, africa was developing large and prosperous civilizations

Do we have a moral right to impose our rule on a people over whom we have no claim other than superior economic or military power?

Most certainly. Does a Lion have the right to lead the pack and have all the kids just because he is stronger, faster and more intelligen than the other lions? YES. It is the way the rest of the world works so why can humans not do it as well?

Just because i'm stronger than someone doesn't mean that i can beat him up and take all his stuff.