Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 7:10 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Pros and cons of Colonialism?
#21
RE: Pros and cons of Colonialism?
(November 6, 2015 at 4:08 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote:
(November 2, 2015 at 9:23 am)ChadWooters Wrote: If those other counties had had the means they'd have done the same or worse to the West. No one is innocent. Many of those cultures were brutalizing each other long before Europeans came along. The Sioux fought the Cherakee. The Navaho fought the Apatche. Winners aren't always bad and losers aren't all saints.



There is a difference between tribal disputes and European colonization and the genocide and veritable extinction of some of the most advanced civilizations in the Mexica and Inca.

This implies that all there is to compare European colonization to is tribal "disputes"  The difference between tribal war and European war at that time would have been the technology. 
It would be difficult to argue that if the warrriors of a tribe had weaponss that could defeat machine guns and superior ocean faring technology they would have stopped after killing Europeans after a a certain number had died based on moral grounds.
The intention behind was is the same reguardless of if you call it a "dispute" or "colonization".


Are you ready for the fire? We are firemen. WE ARE FIREMEN! The heat doesn’t bother us. We live in the heat. We train in the heat. It tells us that we’re ready, we’re at home, we’re where we’re supposed to be. Flames don’t intimidate us. What do we do? We control the flame. We control them. We move the flames where we want to. And then we extinguish them.

Impersonation is treason.





Reply
#22
RE: Pros and cons of Colonialism?
(November 6, 2015 at 5:31 pm)paulpablo Wrote: This implies that all there is to compare European colonization to is tribal "disputes"  The difference between tribal war and European war at that time would have been the technology. 

No, it isn't. For just one example look up selling contaminated blankets to naives. There are many more, but I'm always pretty tired when I see apologetics. So, go, do your own research. Or don't. It's not as if I would really care.

On second thought, you might also look up what Columbus' bunch used dogs for. According to the accounts of some cleric being in his company.
[Image: Bumper+Sticker+-+Asheville+-+Praise+Dog3.JPG]
Reply
#23
RE: Pros and cons of Colonialism?
(November 6, 2015 at 5:31 pm)abaris Wrote:
(November 6, 2015 at 5:18 pm)paulpablo Wrote: I don't see how anything you typed did anything to dismiss any of the claims made by the post you were replying to.

So you don't get it? He's offsetting something he perceives to be wrong against another thing, many perceive to be wrong. The implication, even if not outspoken, is clear. They would have done it too, so what we have done wasn't that bad after all.

Based on what, is the first question coming to mind, since these tribal scuffles really can't be compared to what the so called European explorers and settlers did. It is indeed a classic of pointing fingers at history, to make the own side look better.

I think the implication is that killing is wrong, humans are of a similar natural all around the globe, the only difference in the amount of killing different groups of people partake in seems to be the ability they have to kill, also though some amount of cultural influence is obviously at work, but most groups on this earth have tried to enslave and kill each other.

Also the rebranding of war and calling it a "scuffle" or "dispute" doesn't change the fact that it is war and there would have been the intention to kill, enslave and torture.


Are you ready for the fire? We are firemen. WE ARE FIREMEN! The heat doesn’t bother us. We live in the heat. We train in the heat. It tells us that we’re ready, we’re at home, we’re where we’re supposed to be. Flames don’t intimidate us. What do we do? We control the flame. We control them. We move the flames where we want to. And then we extinguish them.

Impersonation is treason.





Reply
#24
RE: Pros and cons of Colonialism?
(November 1, 2015 at 10:31 pm)TrueChristian Wrote: I know in History classes around this great nation of ours, it is standard procedure to teach that European Colonialism of Africa was "bad."

But was it really all bad?

Yes there was some bad things, but why is it that the benefits of European colonialism are never discussed?

There were benefits, it just is un-pc to point them out.

1. Technology:There was much technological advancement. Things like medicine, machinery, and books  were brought to Africa. Before Europeans came those Africans were pretty much like the ewoks from star wars in terms of technology.

2.Education: The Europeans through their many churches and charitable organizations tought the Africans to read and write. They opened their minds to such possibilities!

3. Government: This one only really applies to the True Christian British (as opposed to the pagan Portuguese and French) but those dark dark children of Africa were introduced democracy!

4. Language: Have you ever listened to the "language" they speak in Africa? It is so frightening! It is a bunch of nonsensical, babbling gibberish! I sometimes can't tell if it is people speaking or just a bunch of grunting and babbling baboons! After thousands of years speaking their "languages" they got the opprotunity to speak good, normal languages. English, the language of our founding fathers and the King James Bible espeically!

When the aliens with the super duper pooper probes show up I'll be sure to give them your address.  I know how much you appreciate being bettered by your betters.
Reply
#25
RE: Pros and cons of Colonialism?
Almost forgot. Dick!
Reply
#26
RE: Pros and cons of Colonialism?
(November 6, 2015 at 5:37 pm)paulpablo Wrote: I think the implication is that killing is wrong, humans are of a similar natural all around the globe, the only difference in the amount of killing different groups of people partake in seems to be the ability they have to kill, also though some amount of cultural influence is obviously at work, but most groups on this earth have tried to enslave and kill each other.

No, it isn't. Not with this one. For reference, see thread "How to redeem humanity".
[Image: Bumper+Sticker+-+Asheville+-+Praise+Dog3.JPG]
Reply
#27
RE: Pros and cons of Colonialism?
(November 6, 2015 at 5:34 pm)abaris Wrote:
(November 6, 2015 at 5:31 pm)paulpablo Wrote: This implies that all there is to compare European colonization to is tribal "disputes"  The difference between tribal war and European war at that time would have been the technology. 

No, it isn't. For just one example look up selling contaminated blankets to naives. There are many more, but I'm always pretty tired when I see apologetics. So, go, do your own research. Or don't. It's not as if I would really care.

On second thought, you might also look up what Columbus' bunch used dogs for. According to the accounts of some cleric being in his company.

I imagine they thought the blankets would indirectly kill the natives, and I'm guessing he used the dogs for killing?  The same objective as there would be in a tribal war, or a raid, to kill people and steal stuff.


Are you ready for the fire? We are firemen. WE ARE FIREMEN! The heat doesn’t bother us. We live in the heat. We train in the heat. It tells us that we’re ready, we’re at home, we’re where we’re supposed to be. Flames don’t intimidate us. What do we do? We control the flame. We control them. We move the flames where we want to. And then we extinguish them.

Impersonation is treason.





Reply
#28
RE: Pros and cons of Colonialism?
(November 6, 2015 at 5:41 pm)abaris Wrote:
(November 6, 2015 at 5:37 pm)paulpablo Wrote: I think the implication is that killing is wrong, humans are of a similar natural all around the globe, the only difference in the amount of killing different groups of people partake in seems to be the ability they have to kill, also though some amount of cultural influence is obviously at work, but most groups on this earth have tried to enslave and kill each other.

No, it isn't. Not with this one. For reference, see thread "How to redeem humanity".

You'd have to tell me which part it's quite long.


Are you ready for the fire? We are firemen. WE ARE FIREMEN! The heat doesn’t bother us. We live in the heat. We train in the heat. It tells us that we’re ready, we’re at home, we’re where we’re supposed to be. Flames don’t intimidate us. What do we do? We control the flame. We control them. We move the flames where we want to. And then we extinguish them.

Impersonation is treason.





Reply
#29
RE: Pros and cons of Colonialism?
(November 2, 2015 at 9:23 am)ChadWooters Wrote: If those other counties had had the means they'd have done the same or worse to the West. No one is innocent. Many of those cultures were brutalizing each other long before Europeans came along. The Sioux fought the Cherakee. The Navaho fought the Apatche. Winners aren't always bad and losers aren't all saints.

The Sioux didn't fight the Cherokee. The Sioux were a northern Plains grouping of tribes which ranged from Alberta and Manitoba in Canada to Nebraska and Minnesota in the US. The Cherokee, on the other hand, were a Southeastern tribe (in fact, the largest in that area) living as far east as the Carolinas and as far west as Mississippi, but they didn't see the Plains until the US government force-marched them into Oklahoma.

Your point, that the tribes fought each other, is mundane. Of course they did, and no one is saying they didn't. But there's a difference between fighting a war and perpetrating colonialism, especially at the expense of another society. You're right, there's good and bad in every society and culture. But you should at least get your facts straight in supporting your point.

Reply
#30
RE: Pros and cons of Colonialism?
(November 2, 2015 at 9:23 am)ChadWooters Wrote: If those other counties had had the means they'd have done the same or worse to the West. No one is innocent. Many of those cultures were brutalizing each other long before Europeans came along. The Sioux fought the Cherakee. The Navaho fought the Apatche. Winners aren't always bad and losers aren't all saints.

Probably true, but "the other guy did it too" is hardly justification for barbarism.
Reply





Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)