hero of the left

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

hero of the left

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 11 of 16 < 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 >

Stirlingsays 24 Oct 17 3.44pm
Colonialism can't be defended through modern western eyes. However, revisionism and massive generalization is always a danger when these things are spoken about. What I will say about those who take the moral high ground on these matters is that human nature is reality. Human beings aren't 'nice'. If your culture and technological development, especially defence, are backward.....you're going to get your arse handed to you...Especially if you are sitting on resource rich land. Colonialism is a modern name for human activity that is as old as the first humans....the very people complaining about the loss of power are apart of cultures that misplaced others before them. The reality is that 'right' has always been 'might'. You can moan about it.....the native Americans moan about it....and they are right.....But essentially cultures that don't progress are temporary custodians for cultures that do. People who think we can turn into sage Vulcans are dangerously deluded. There are several non western cultures who would gladly turn you into the native Americans. It's all about risk and benefit rewards. Edited by Stirlingsays (24 Oct 2017 4.10pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

24 Oct 17 3.44pm

Colonialism can't be defended through modern western eyes. However, revisionism and massive generalization is always a danger when these things are spoken about.

What I will say about those who take the moral high ground on these matters is that human nature is reality. Human beings aren't 'nice'. If your culture and technological development, especially defence, are backward.....you're going to get your arse handed to you...Especially if you are sitting on resource rich land. Colonialism is a modern name for human activity that is as old as the first humans....the very people complaining about the loss of power are apart of cultures that misplaced others before them. The reality is that 'right' has always been 'might'.

You can moan about it.....the native Americans moan about it....and they are right.....But essentially cultures that don't progress are temporary custodians for cultures that do. People who think we can turn into sage Vulcans are dangerously deluded.

There are several non western cultures who would gladly turn you into the native Americans. It's all about risk and benefit rewards.

Edited by Stirlingsays (24 Oct 2017 4.10pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8 Hevon 24 Oct 17 3.48pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger They are all simply about control for personal advantage. Skin has nothing to do with it. Don't be a silly billy. Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 24 Oct 17 3.48pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

They are all simply about control for personal advantage. Skin has nothing to do with it.

Don't be a silly billy.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 24 Oct 17 3.50pm
Originally posted by Kermit8 Don't be a silly billy. So you think that if Africa had been full of 'white' tribes we would have just gone home. Stop it. The Romans didn't give a damn what colour you were and nor would we. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (24 Oct 2017 3.51pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

24 Oct 17 3.50pm

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Originally posted by Kermit8

Don't be a silly billy.

So you think that if Africa had been full of 'white' tribes we would have just gone home. Stop it.

The Romans didn't give a damn what colour you were and nor would we.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (24 Oct 2017 3.51pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 24 Oct 17 3.55pm
Originally posted by Kermit8 Don't be a silly billy. The people should have the right to vote in their leaders. Their skin colour, like anything else, is subject to the preference of those voting for them. The criticism of these regimes is reflected in how they treat those within their power. They were racist themselves and just as uncaring as what they replaced. Those who tried to hold onto their farm lands in that environment mostly knew what was coming.....they should have left but their deaths were murder all the same. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

24 Oct 17 3.55pm

Originally posted by Kermit8

Don't be a silly billy.

The people should have the right to vote in their leaders. Their skin colour, like anything else, is subject to the preference of those voting for them.

The criticism of these regimes is reflected in how they treat those within their power. They were racist themselves and just as uncaring as what they replaced.

Those who tried to hold onto their farm lands in that environment mostly knew what was coming.....they should have left but their deaths were murder all the same.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8 Hevon 24 Oct 17 3.58pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger So you think that if Africa had been full of 'white' tribes we would have just gone home. Stop it. The Romans didn't give a damn what colour you were and nor would we. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (24 Oct 2017 3.51pm) You are propagating the idea that the apartheid policies of the aforementioned countries were not influenced by skin colour but imposed by people who just happened to have a different hue to those who were the most negatively affected by them. You have outdone yourself this time with your ongoing daft opinions hilariously. thanks the gauffaws. Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 24 Oct 17 3.58pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

So you think that if Africa had been full of 'white' tribes we would have just gone home. Stop it.

The Romans didn't give a damn what colour you were and nor would we.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (24 Oct 2017 3.51pm)

You are propagating the idea that the apartheid policies of the aforementioned countries were not influenced by skin colour but imposed by people who just happened to have a different hue to those who were the most negatively affected by them.

You have outdone yourself this time with your ongoing daft opinions hilariously.

thanks the gauffaws.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 24 Oct 17 3.58pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Not really, South Africa and Zimbabwe had specific racial laws. Peoples ID cards specified their race, and their race specified their rights. If I remember rightly, South Africa specifically tested peoples race (just in case you looked white) and stated that on their ID card. Blacks in both countries were oppressed on the basis of their race, as were Indians (South Africa has a large Indian population who were subject to specific racial rules). I don't doubt it. But this is more about circumstances, as I said to Kermit. Do you really think that a little thing like skin colour would have gotten in the way of colonial expansion? We have screwed a lot of different types of people for our own ends as have other groups. The race angle is just an easy label to identify and belittle people who you want to dominate,use or ultimately remove.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

24 Oct 17 3.58pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Not really, South Africa and Zimbabwe had specific racial laws. Peoples ID cards specified their race, and their race specified their rights. If I remember rightly, South Africa specifically tested peoples race (just in case you looked white) and stated that on their ID card.

Blacks in both countries were oppressed on the basis of their race, as were Indians (South Africa has a large Indian population who were subject to specific racial rules).

I don't doubt it. But this is more about circumstances, as I said to Kermit. Do you really think that a little thing like skin colour would have gotten in the way of colonial expansion? We have screwed a lot of different types of people for our own ends as have other groups. The race angle is just an easy label to identify and belittle people who you want to dominate,use or ultimately remove.

Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8 Hevon 24 Oct 17 4.00pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays The people should have the right to vote in their leaders. Their skin colour, like anything else, is subject to the preference of those voting for them. The criticism of these regimes is reflected in how they treat those within their power. They were racist themselves and just as uncaring as what they replaced. Those who tried to hold onto their farm lands in that environment mostly knew what was coming.....they should have left but their deaths were murder all the same. For Hrolf, historically, white rule never existed in South Africa. These are the kind of allies you are hanging out with politically Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 24 Oct 17 4.00pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

The people should have the right to vote in their leaders. Their skin colour, like anything else, is subject to the preference of those voting for them.

The criticism of these regimes is reflected in how they treat those within their power. They were racist themselves and just as uncaring as what they replaced.

Those who tried to hold onto their farm lands in that environment mostly knew what was coming.....they should have left but their deaths were murder all the same.

For Hrolf, historically, white rule never existed in South Africa.

These are the kind of allies you are hanging out with politically

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 24 Oct 17 4.03pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays Colonialism can't be defended through modern western eyes. However, revisionism and massive generalization is always a danger when these things are spoken about. What I will say about those who take the moral high ground on these matters is that human nature is reality. Human beings aren't 'nice'. If your culture and technological development, especially defence, are backward.....you're going to get your arse handed to you...Especially if you are sitting on resource rich land. You can moan about it.....the native Americans moan about it....and they are right.....But essentially cultures that don't progress are temporary custodians for cultures that do. 'Might is Right' is how the world has always worked. People who think we can turn into sage Vulcans are dangerously deluded. There are several non western cultures who would gladly turn you into the native Americans. It's all about risk and benefit rewards. Edited by Stirlingsays (24 Oct 2017 3.48pm) The benefit of hindsight, is that we can see what was wrong, and colonialism was a terrible injustice perpetuated by nations onto other others. I don't think it can really be written off as 'humans not being nice' because not everyone supported the colonialism at the time, there was dissenters from the offset, as there were with the slave trade. And those people, even if a minority, were right. Our ancestors probably thought they were right, and as it turns out, they weren't. They were simply trying to justify immoral and unethical actions that just happened to benefit them - like they did with slavery. The important thing is to remember, and move on - and avoid trying to avoid making the same mistakes in the future, and where possible try to undo some of that damage. When we talk about any subject, we should talk warts and all; the empire was an injustice perpetuated on a lot of people, in a manner we'd consider now an act of war and an occupation. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 24 Oct 17 4.03pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Colonialism can't be defended through modern western eyes. However, revisionism and massive generalization is always a danger when these things are spoken about.

You can moan about it.....the native Americans moan about it....and they are right.....But essentially cultures that don't progress are temporary custodians for cultures that do. 'Might is Right' is how the world has always worked. People who think we can turn into sage Vulcans are dangerously deluded.

There are several non western cultures who would gladly turn you into the native Americans. It's all about risk and benefit rewards.

Edited by Stirlingsays (24 Oct 2017 3.48pm)

The benefit of hindsight, is that we can see what was wrong, and colonialism was a terrible injustice perpetuated by nations onto other others. I don't think it can really be written off as 'humans not being nice' because not everyone supported the colonialism at the time, there was dissenters from the offset, as there were with the slave trade.

And those people, even if a minority, were right.

Our ancestors probably thought they were right, and as it turns out, they weren't. They were simply trying to justify immoral and unethical actions that just happened to benefit them - like they did with slavery.

The important thing is to remember, and move on - and avoid trying to avoid making the same mistakes in the future, and where possible try to undo some of that damage.

When we talk about any subject, we should talk warts and all; the empire was an injustice perpetuated on a lot of people, in a manner we'd consider now an act of war and an occupation.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 24 Oct 17 4.06pm
Originally posted by Kermit8 You are propagating the idea that the apartheid policies of the aforementioned countries were not influenced by skin colour but imposed by people who just happened to have a different hue to those who were the most negatively affected by them. You have outdone yourself this time with your ongoing daft opinions hilariously. thanks the gauffaws. I don't think you are clever enough to understand. Keep laughing Kermy.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

24 Oct 17 4.06pm

Originally posted by Kermit8

You have outdone yourself this time with your ongoing daft opinions hilariously.

thanks the gauffaws.

I don't think you are clever enough to understand.

Keep laughing Kermy.

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 24 Oct 17 4.07pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger I don't doubt it. But this is more about circumstances, as I said to Kermit. Do you really think that a little thing like skin colour would have gotten in the way of colonial expansion? We have screwed a lot of different types of people for our own ends as have other groups. The race angle is just an easy label to identify and belittle people who you want to dominate, use or ultimately remove. Yes, because the Empire nations, because we never tried to claim Spain, after fighting the French there, or France after the defeat of Napoleon, or even Germany after the defeat in 1918. Nations would fight nations for imperial territory, the British fought the Boar, but realistically, had they been white people, its unlikely they'd have enacted the slave trade or empire in the same manner as they did in Africa. We'd have treated them a lot differently as well (compare the US revolution to how revolts in other racial areas were dealt with). Edited by jamiemartin721 (24 Oct 2017 4.08pm) "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 24 Oct 17 4.07pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

I don't doubt it. But this is more about circumstances, as I said to Kermit. Do you really think that a little thing like skin colour would have gotten in the way of colonial expansion? We have screwed a lot of different types of people for our own ends as have other groups. The race angle is just an easy label to identify and belittle people who you want to dominate, use or ultimately remove.

Yes, because the Empire nations, because we never tried to claim Spain, after fighting the French there, or France after the defeat of Napoleon, or even Germany after the defeat in 1918.

Nations would fight nations for imperial territory, the British fought the Boar, but realistically, had they been white people, its unlikely they'd have enacted the slave trade or empire in the same manner as they did in Africa.

We'd have treated them a lot differently as well (compare the US revolution to how revolts in other racial areas were dealt with).

Edited by jamiemartin721 (24 Oct 2017 4.08pm)

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 24 Oct 17 4.07pm
Originally posted by Kermit8 For Hrolf, historically, white rule never existed in South Africa. These are the kind of allies you are hanging out with politically So do you refer to the Tory party as 'white' rulers then?
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

24 Oct 17 4.07pm

Originally posted by Kermit8

For Hrolf, historically, white rule never existed in South Africa.

These are the kind of allies you are hanging out with politically

So do you refer to the Tory party as 'white' rulers then?

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 24 Oct 17 4.12pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger So do you refer to the Tory party as 'white' rulers then? South Africa had explicit race laws, passed by government, segregating the races. Transgression of these laws was a crime (such as having sex with people of different racial groups - largely unenforced if you were white). So no, the conservative party whilst mostly white has non white MPs. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 24 Oct 17 4.12pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

So do you refer to the Tory party as 'white' rulers then?

South Africa had explicit race laws, passed by government, segregating the races. Transgression of these laws was a crime (such as having sex with people of different racial groups - largely unenforced if you were white).

So no, the conservative party whilst mostly white has non white MPs.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 11 of 16 < 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

hero of the left

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors