Author Topic: Colonialism as viewed by Westerners  (Read 1402 times)

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7398
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Colonialism as viewed by Westerners
« on: March 15, 2021, 01:26:46 am »
OLD CONTENT

Other than the incorrect (in typically Western anthropocentric fashion) use of the term "nature" (when in reality colonial era Western behaviour was utterly natural in the sense of being a mere product of natural selection) to refer to the environment, a remarkably vivid self-appraisal by our enemies:

www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/01/1619-project-omits-significant-detail-new-world-jason-d-hill/

Quote
I’d like to offer something different: a philosophical-anthropological account of why I believe chattel slavery was the inevitable outcome of a clash between the presence of a manifest destiny of European man, and the absence of one in African and, generally speaking—Indigenous Man.

When European Man and African Man first encountered each other it must have been a shock to the sensibilities of both. Having established a particular relationship to the earth that differed greatly from that of African man, European man saw himself as more than custodian of the earth—he was its earthly owner who exercised Divine dominion over it. He had done this by creating an abstract personality that had devised a method of exploiting and conquering nature to adapt it to suit his needs. He had, in effect, divorced himself from his animality, transcended it, and placed nature in a subordinate position which he dominated and controlled with weapons, tools and reason. Objects he encountered, including soil, trees, animals, minerals and figures resembling human-beings outside the historical process who presented themselves as part of nature—were treated as nature; that is, they were simply appropriated, controlled, taken out of the state of nature and commodified into socially useful artifacts for human consumption.

When European Man encountered African Man or Indigenous Man, he did not discover one that was his military or technological equal. What he found was one that presented himself as irrevocably tied to his animal nature. Indigenous Man presented himself as a natural creature having not yet transformed himself out of biological time into historical time, from a conception of himself as cyclical biological creature into an epoch-making world historical man. Indigenous Man did not have these attributes and he was, literally, there for the taking -- like the water buffalo and minerals and other resources around him. Had he transformed himself out of biological time into historical time, he would have devised the proper self-defense against conquest. European domination was made possible by the arrested epistemological development and faulty metaphysics of Indigenous Man that allowed for his rapacious conquest. He was seen as existing in a fallowed state of nature.

Man becomes historical by creating new worlds; new worlds that are symbolic and cultural in form which have no formal spiritual animal equivalent. Man as an evolved being severs his spiritual ties with his animal past and in the process engages in massive repression. Once man co-extends his animality into space and promotes and lives in biological time, his self-domestication and, therefore, self-maturation, is retarded and the reigning in of his animal self is a process that is fetishized. The animal within one needed no special encouragement. Rather, it is the birth of a self divorced from nature that will enter the historical process. A self that does not make this achievement will lose the battle to historical man.

The problem with Indigenous Man was that he could not extend his imagination into a world that stretched far beyond his immediate sight. Unable to construct powerful naval configurations that could dominate the high seas and reach into territories beyond,

This is factually untrue, of course:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/new-world-raft-design-and-colonialist-response/

But anyway:

Quote
Indigenous Man’s physical, existential groping consisted in nearby raids and attacks close to the womb-like hearth where protective retreat into the zones of the primal tribe was always possible. He never learned to turn away from the ever-cyclical and adaptive behavior of animal species and create colossal conquests of his own. Formal detachment and projection into an infinite future were absent from the range of his possibilities. Mimicry and imitation -- whether of the ancestral world or the animal word -- is the ruling principle of Indigenous Man. Radical innovation would upset an unknowable order ruled by implacable and ineffable deities whose irreversible punishments would bring catastrophic designs on a people. Indigenous Man’s entire use of whatever semblance of reason he utilized was to divine the minds of the gods in order to placate them and to preempt them.

European Man, by contrast, used his reason to justify and align his will with God’s will. If he willed to conquer the majority of so-called uncivilized lands, then that was God’s will all along. European Man has never truly feared God in the way Indigenous Man has feared his gods. European man was not a renter, a mere custodian and grateful equal opportunity dweller on the face of the earth: this earth belonged to him and he was God’s earthly representative on it -- period. European Man saw himself as God made visible on earth.

I have also said many times that Westerners are created in the image of Yahweh.

Quote
European Man felt his loneliness because of a detachment from his animality and his unsentimental domestication of nature. He placed himself above nature, and did not worship, extol or venerate the creatures he willingly slaughtered as do many New World indigenous peoples. He did not pray to their spirits for guidance, or take on their likeness for deeper insight into an alternate reality. He therefore alienated himself from his primeval roots. To recover the roots he had betrayed and can never recover, he set out on a path of territorial conquests which were symbolic homes from the hearths that he had abandoned, the roots he had severed, the primal scene he had fled. The conquests were not just a substitute for a discarded home within -- they were a sign of physical and spiritual potency and omnipotence writ large: the world was his home and belonged to him. Was this not the audacious belief of tiny England when it dared and did conquer and occupy at one time one-third of the earth?

European Man has always labored under the conception of himself as a post-human figure. Modern civilization was made by mandates handed down by God, or by the rational construct of man’s mind. European Man, even when mired in tribal configurations, was always in flight from his roots to a large extent and, therefore, has always sought to forget from whence he came through explorative conquests. Explorative European Man, unlike Indigenous Man, declared himself eternally independent from and, in some degree, in contempt of primordial nature. For European Man it is not only that nature cannot be sentimentalized. It must be commanded, subdued and conquered.

To begin a historical process, one must often leave origins behind and possess the absolute hubris

Hence the name:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/homo-hubris/

Quote
to act as one’s own causa sui and begin a journey with one’s people out of which one creates a comprehensive mythology. One and one’s cultural milieu become the standpoint and the backdrop against which knowledge begins, and against which justification for moral action occurs.

Indigenous Man was not written out of history by European Man. His own cosmogonies canceled him out of the realm of high artifice. The subordination of nature and radical adaption of nature to man’s needs is the juncture where history begins. Indigenous Man’s cosmogonies never emancipated him from the reality of flux and chaos that he needed in order to be catapulted into the epochal realm of mastery, domination and conquest. It is not accidental that African Man’s dugout canoes and larger ships were never equipped to cross the high seas into Europe and conquer the British Isles. The cognitive feats of abstractions and mathematical computations required were absent. Perhaps they were missing because lacking in his thinking was a conception of a God who existed outside his creation that gave him cosmic significance and, more importantly, “cosmic specialness.”

I feel the need to remind readers that this article is not satire.

Quote
Although Indigenous Man had local rites of passage that turned on heroic tropes within his small local tribes and that were validated via small-scale conquests of other tribal units within nearby compounds or at best, across the nearby waters, these conquests and local discoveries never gave him the cosmic grandeur of a universal aspirational identity and consciousness attained by European Man.

Indigenous Man’s cosmogonies canceled him out of the historical process because they never equipped him to aspire to become a universal man; the measure of all things. Primordial cosmogony was always in flux, dependent on the weather, the unruly demons, or the ineffable gods who ruled the cosmos, or the tribal chiefs who had access to them and whose whims and moods determined the moods and nature of the gods themselves.

European colonial expansion can be seen in several lights. One could say European man transformed each colonial outpost into an aspirational domain where, say, any Englishman, could realize himself and become who he thought he was meant to be in the world. These colonies were transformational units that, to the European cosmogony and moral imagination, were parts of a whole in a mechanistic rational universe. Disenfranchised individuals were not so much regarded as social ballasts as they were inanimate parts of nature to be appropriated and transformed out of nature into commodifiable material units.

Again, this is not satire. This is the enemy that we must defeat.

---

"In defense of benevolent colonialism"
www.darkmoon.me/2016/in-defense-of-benevolent-colonialism/

Quote
It has been argued, for example, with much plausibility, that India became a better country when the the British took over and abolished the cruel custom of suttee, the burning to death of widows after the death of their husbands. Similarly, the abolition of cannibalism in Africa is hardly something for which the Brits can be blamed. White Warrior’s comment falls into this category of critique. However politically incorrect, it constitutes an intellectually defensible point of view. Hence our reason for publishing it — as a matter for polite and intelligent discussion. (LD)

---

"with much plausibility"

Only to Westerners.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_(practice)#History

Quote
earlier Muslim travellers such as Sulaiman al-Tajir reported that sati was optionally practiced, which a widow could choose to undertake.[46]
...
According to Anand A. Yang, one model proposes taking into account the association of sati with the warrior elite in particular, sati only became really widespread during the Muslim invasions of India, and the practice of sati now acquired an additional meaning as a means to preserve the honour of women whose men had been slain.[50] Jogan Shankar meanwhile states that sati gained more value during the period of Muslim conquests, especially with the variant of mass sati called jauhar, practiced especially among the Rajputs.[52]

However, this theory does not address the evidence of occasional incidences of sati in pre-Islamic times. The 510 CE inscription at Eran mentioning the wife of Goparaja, a vassal of Bhanugupta, burning herself on her husband's pyre is considered to be a Sati stone.[53] Vidya Dehejia states that sati became regular only after 500 CE.[54] He states that the practice originated among the Kshatriyas and remained mostly limited to the warrior class among Hindus.[55] Yang adds that the practice was also emulated by those seeking to achieve high status of the royalty and the warriors.[50]
...
According to Annemarie Schimmel, the Mughal Emperor Akbar was averse to the practice of Sati; however, he expressed his admiration for "widows who wished to be cremated with their deceased husbands".[63] He was averse to abuse, and in 1582, Akbar issued an order to prevent any use of compulsion in sati.[63][64]
...
According to Sharma, the evidence nevertheless suggests that sati was universally admired, and both "Hindus and Muslims went in large numbers to witness a sati".[69]

I myself also find voluntary sati to be extremely romantic. I would certainly not ban it if I were in charge. The only thing I would do is eliminate the gender asymmetry: widowers should practice it also. Indeed there is no reason to limit it to a practice between spouses only:

Quote
In Cambodia, both the lords and the wives of a dead king voluntarily burnt themselves in the 15th and 16th centuries.

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Bad Spelling Bad Spelling x 1 View List

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7398
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Colonialism as viewed by Westerners
« Reply #1 on: March 15, 2021, 01:28:36 am »
Latest (ignore TYT's False Left nonsense about democracy, which itself was only introduced around the world as a consequence of colonialism, so why are the TYT idiots praising democracy in a segment condemning colonialism FFS?):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsigUjXpea4

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7398
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Colonialism as viewed by Westerners
« Reply #2 on: April 06, 2021, 04:04:04 am »
Our enemies on Agatha Christie, whom I agree academically showed through her novels with great accuracy how colonial-era "whites" saw themselves compared to "non-whites" (of course, unlike our enemies, I have never been a fan of Christie novels):

https://counter-currents.com/2021/04/murder-maps/

Quote
Why have her books endured so well? An obvious answer is the fondness we all seem to share for celebrity, murder, and mystery (an author rarely goes wrong when he decides to open his first chapter with a gruesome crime perpetrated against a young blonde). Another involves escapism. For all the aristocratic bad behavior depicted in her fiction, Christie’s stories have evoked a charmed era when Europeans dressed well, drank scotch and gin during afternoon luncheons, took long holidays in the Mediterranean — and above all took for granted white (and particularly British) dominion. Rule Britannia! It is indeed hard for whites (myself included) not to be seduced a little by the romance of St. George’s Empire, once breathtaking in its ambitious scope.
...
She wrote during both the twilight of the aristocracy and the British Empire, a sprawling hegemon that, at its apogee, flew its crossed colors over one-fifth of the globe’s landed territory. Yes, she wrote detective novels, but they were also romances dedicated to nonchalant European supremacy, to a confidence in Western values and institutions. Unconscious and unselfconscious mastery.
...
When she was a child in the 1890s, Britain was the undoubted center of the world: first in naval might, finance, and overseas possession. Following the American Revolution (1775-1783), the British Empire had appeared on the verge of decline. Instead of wallowing or retreating back into their small island fortress in order to “reassess,” or to “think things over,” Britishers devoted more energy to the Orient, particularly to that most lucrative and prized diamond adorning their imperial diadem — Hindoostan (India). But in general, the British were more concerned with maintaining their empire rather than expanding it during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. This changed over the course of Queen Victoria’s long reign and culminated in “the Scramble for Africa” and various (mis)adventures in East Asia (The Opium Wars and “The Open Door” policy among them), all of which caused the Empire to suddenly swell to new and fantastic proportions. But by the interwar era (ca. 1920-1940), the British had once more returned to maintaining an empire that had bloated beyond prudence.
...
Of the wilds of Mesopotamia, she remarked, “The utter peace is wonderful. A great wave of happiness surges over me, and I realize how much I love this country, and how complete and satisfying this life is . . .” It was a place where Christie could mock “Arabs, Kurds, Armenians, Turks and Yezidi devil-worshippers who worked on the excavations as freely as she could of Oxford scholars, of her husband and herself.” [5] Simultaneously, and next to all this antiquity, were the modern innovations that condensed twentieth-century time and distance — and allowed for mass European tourism. Motor cars, trains, steamers, and aeroplanes all played indispensable roles in Christie’s Oriental murder mysteries. “Detection” and archaeology went hand-in-hand, after all, for each sifted through clues, and both investigated the dead.
...
NB: “Colonial” in this essay refers to whites of European ancestry born or having lived outside the West. In the greater Anglo-Saxon world, “colonial” was almost always a white person (joined by expressions such as “Anglo-Indian,” “white African,” “Boer,” etc.); when referring to nonwhites in the Empire, the British used terms like “Aborigine,” “colored,” “Hindoo,” “black,” “Sambo,” “tribesman,” “Mohammedan,” or “native.” Almost never were the locals or native porters seriously suspected of having committed the arch-crimes in Christie’s fiction. The schemes were too well-planned and ingeniously crafted for audiences to believe their simpler minds were capable of them. And what an anticlimax it would have made for Monsieur Poirot to have fingered a lowly colored footman for the murder of Lady Linette Ridgeway-Doyle! With a few exceptions, nonwhites filtered in and out of Christie’s stories to “set the mood,” as it were, to carry the luggage, and to part pretty English ladies from their coin in exchange for palm readings and colorful baubles from the bazaar. These were books whose Edwardian sensibilities appealed to interwar readers who found themselves pining for a past already lost to them.
...
In the novel The Sittaford Mystery, the character (and victim) Captain Trevelyan was a retired naval officer who apparently hated women due to a romantic “jilting” he had once suffered as a young man overseas. He’d come back to England and rented the large Sittaford House to the Willetts, a mother and daughter pair fresh from South Africa themselves (“overfriendly, you know, like colonials are”). [13] During a seance parlor game, the Willetts and several of their houseguests received a troubling message from the spirit board: “TREVELYAN DEAD.” Amidst a witching-hour blizzard, an expedition was then mounted to assess the welfare of the Captain — only for the sleuths to find his body slumped, lifeless, and surrounded by his most treasured possessions: “two pairs of skis, a pair of sculls [oars] mounted, ten or twelve hippopotamus tusks, rods and lines and various fishing tackle including a book of flies, a bag of golf clubs, a tennis racket, an elephant’s foot stuffed and mounted and a tiger skin.” [14] The stuff of a former colonial adventurer.
...
Major Despard, one of the prime suspects in Cards on the Table, might have resembled Trevelyan during the latter’s younger years. He was a tall, dashing aristocrat who’d made a living writing books about his explorations of the dark corners of the world — places like South America, East Africa, Sri Lanka, etc. He, too, scorned what in his view was an “effeminate” existence in favor of sport and safari. Oh, he admitted to liking England “for very short periods. To come back from the wilds to lighted rooms and women in lovely clothes, to dancing and good food and laughter — yes, [he] enjoy[ed] that — for a time. And then the insincerity of it all sicken[ed] [him], and [he] want[ed] to be off again.” [16] While Sittaford depicted white colonials as having suffered enervation by way of the tropical climate, Despard held the opposite opinion: those of his countrymen who stayed at home were the degenerates, those who preferred the company of women — afraid of manly risk and loath to test their mettle against the elements.
...
Luxmore’s wife attempted to tackle the major, forcing the weapon up and the shot to tear through the Doctor’s back, killing him instantly (“foolish woman!”). Aware that such a story would have invited scurrilous speculation, Despard and Mrs. Luxmore agreed to keep the incident quiet and to tell all who asked that her husband had died of his illness. In a supremely white and self-assured way, Despard explained that though “the [native] bearers” who accompanied the trio “knew the truth . . . they were all devoted to [him] and [he] knew that what [he] said they’d swear to if need be.[17] [They] buried poor old Luxmore and got back to civilization.” [17] Despite precautions, the shooting in the wilderness would return to torment Despard “back in civilized” England.
...
Christie’s 1939 novel Ten Little Indians (known, too, as Ten Little Niggers or And Then There Were None), also delved into the psychology of colonialism, particularly in the character of Philip Lombard, a “soldier of fortune.” Having received a job offer through a Jewish middleman and with the promise of a one-hundred guinea bounty, Lombard accepted the mysterious request with practiced insouciance
...
When accused via gramophone of killing “twenty-one men, members of an East African tribe” in February of 1932, Lombard was the sole man undisturbed at having his crimes aired before the company. In fact, he seemed proud. The “Story’s quite true!” he said, grinning. “I left ‘em! Matter of self-preservation. We were lost in the bush. I and a couple of other fellows took what food there was and cleared out.” General Macarthur, another servant of the Empire, and one more committed to duty and of preserving the veneer of imperial beneficence, asked sternly: “You abandoned your men — left them to starve?” Lombard shrugged: “’Not quite the act of a pukka sahib, I’m afraid. But self-preservation’s a man’s first duty. And natives don’t mind dying, you know. They don’t feel about it as Europeans do.’ Vera [the young governess] lifted her face from her hands. She said, staring at him: ‘You left them — to die?’” Lombard answered in the affirmative once more as “his amused eyes looked into her horrified” face. [20]
...
By the 1930s, middle and upper-class Europeans could easily book a passage to the Orient, or to North Africa. The technological revolution in transportation afforded them steam liners, zeppelins, planes, railways, and automobiles with which to journey far; and each of these new modes of travel had become icons of modernity, of luxury and speed. But they could also be modes of violence and murder. Cars, trains, and airplanes could be terrifyingly efficient death machines that could entrap and then kill many men at a time. [22] How could flesh and blood, bone and marrow confront 6,000 tons of steel and fire blasting along at forty or fifty kilometers per hour? World War I gave perhaps the most eloquent answer to this question. Agatha Christie’s fiction, too exploited the dual face of modern technology to great effect: how rich and beautiful Europeans enjoyed their outremer trips aboard the most fashionable rail and river liners — but also how these sleek new vessels were the perfect setting for murder. And in a foreign land with confusing languages, laws, and smells, with an unceasing heat that beat down and deranged the senses, any number of evils under a stronger, heathen sun were likely.
...
Hastings found that “the charm of Egypt laid hold of [him],” while Poirot complained incessantly of the sand, heat, and horseflies. Undaunted, Hastings pointed to the magnificent ruins: “Look at the Sphinx . . . Even I can feel the mystery and the charm it exhales.” But Poirot “looked at it discontentedly. ‘It has not the air happy,’ he declared. ‘How could it, half-buried in sand in that untidy fashion. Ah, this cursed sand! . . . It is true that they [the Sphinx], at least, are of a shape solid and geometrical, but their surface is of an unevenness most unpleasing. And the palm-trees, I like them not. Not even do they plant them in rows!’” [25] Here then were the dual expressions of the imperial and insular white worldviews: one reveled in the exotic vastness of empire, while the other was only content in his native European habitat, or in those colonial environs comfortably Europeanized to suit his taste.

Once at the tomb, Poirot questioned the surviving Dr. Ames, “What [did] the native workmen think” of all the trouble? Did Ames believe in the curse? I suppose, said Dr. Ames, “that, where white folk lose their heads, natives aren’t going to be far behind. I’ll admit that they’re getting what you might call scared.” On cue, Lord Willard’s native servant Hassan appeared, begging Poirot to take his master’s son away from “the evil spirits.” [26] In the end, of course, the killer was a flesh-and-blood man. Pairing the Gothic with the realist-Modernist was a common Christie device. Her characters experienced what at first seemed like supernatural events: seances, ghost sightings, and ancient curses — but by the end revealing them all as having a logical explanation. The murderer deliberately manipulated the Ouija Board; a wicked chemist devised a concoction that would release ghastly green vapors; doctors killed their patients under the guise of an old hex. As the detective observed, “Once get it firmly established that a series of deaths are supernatural . . . [and] you might almost stab a man in broad daylight, and it would still be put down to [a] curse, so strongly is the instinct of the supernatural implanted in the human race.” [27] Which is perhaps another way of saying that whites who spend too much time among primitives become more primitive themselves.
...
Since “the boat was not full, most of the passengers had accommodation on the deck. The entire forward part of this deck was occupied by an observation saloon, all glass-enclosed, where the passengers could sit and watch the river unfold before them,” could watch the brown natives from a safe distance ashore. [29]
...
A Mrs. Allerton too lamented the lack of peace whites enjoyed in Egypt and the impossibility of “‘[getting] rid of some of these awful children.’ A group of small black figures” had earlier “surrounded her, all grinning and posturing and holding out imploring hands as they lisped . . . hopefully . . . ‘they closed in on [Mrs. Allerton] little by little’” until she yelled “Imshi” brandishing her sunshade at them. They “scattered for a minute or two. And then they came back and stared and stared, and their eyes were simply disgusting, and so were their noses . . . I don’t believe I really like children – not unless they’re more or less washed and have the rudiments of manners.” [31] In other words, Mrs. Allerton only found white children tolerable. Even though murder quickly turned the cruise ship into a coffin, it was at least devoid of nonwhite pests (save for the mostly invisible serving staff). Readers got the distinct impression that Poirot, Rosalie, Mrs. Allerton, et al. preferred the white nightmare aboard the SS Death Trap to spending another minute with the colored irritants on land.
...
That an insular group of affluent Europeans such as this one assumed that their misbehavior would remain an internal matter, that clear lines separating us from them existed, that colonized peoples would not notice, nor infringe upon their white bubble — that was perhaps the most striking feature of Christie’s “colonial novels.”
...
The major enjoyed gallivanting in the colonial wilds and appreciated the deference natives there paid to a man like himself: an intrepid and commanding British explorer of means. But when a “louse” like Shaitana, who preyed on the weaknesses of white women, settled in the major’s own native land and began to meddle in the business of Europeans — even setting them against one another — that was disgusting. Despard knew instinctively that Shaitana had crossed a line that white men needed to vigilantly guard with their lives. The Syrian fiend could rot in the same hell with which he affected so much familiarity! He belonged nowhere near the Berkshire Downs.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2021, 04:10:36 am by 90sRetroFan »

rp

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
Re: Colonialism as viewed by Westerners
« Reply #3 on: April 21, 2021, 10:14:22 pm »
Subhuman YouTuber celebrates Western conquest of Japan because he can now watch anime ****:
https://youtu.be/_XEfrcBdgQo
« Last Edit: June 12, 2021, 10:23:34 pm by rp »

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7398
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Colonialism as viewed by Westerners
« Reply #4 on: April 26, 2021, 10:13:51 pm »
Rick Santorum proves he is not an American, but a Western occupier and a believer in Manifest Destiny:

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/rick-santorum-native-american-culture-181043531.html

Quote
Rick Santorum Says 'Nothing' Was In America Before White Colonizers Arrived
...
“We birthed a nation from nothing. I mean, there was nothing here,” Santorum, a former Republican senator from Pennsylvania, told students during remarks at a Young America’s Foundation event. “I mean, yes, we have Native Americans, but candidly, there isn’t much Native American culture in American culture.”
...
Santorum’s remarks, first flagged by Media Matters for America, are as offensive as they are inaccurate.

Indigenous peoples had been living in America thousands of years before European explorers showed up in the late 1400s and 1500s. They had their own rich cultures and traditions. European settlers tried to erase all of that by forcibly removing Indigenous people from their lands, slaughtering them, infecting them with new diseases, rounding them up and putting them on reservations, breaking treaties with them and taking their children from them and putting them into boarding schools to try to assimilate them into white culture.
...
all kinds of aspects of Native American culture ― sports, food, dance, art, languages, spiritual practices― are very much a part of American culture today, even if Santorum may not be aware of it.

Something else he may not be aware of: His own birthplace, Winchester, Virginia, was a Shawnee Indian camping ground.

The former Republican senator’s comments sparked outrage on Twitter, where at least one notable member of Congress responded.

“Indigenous peoples are more American than Rick Santorum,” tweeted Rep. Teresa Leger Fernandez (D-N.M.), chair of the House subcommittee for Indigenous Peoples of the United States.

In a fiery statement to HuffPost, National Congress of American Indians President Fawn Sharp said Santorum is an “unhinged and embarrassing racist who disgraces CNN” and called on the media outlet to fire him.
...
        Make your choice. Do you stand with White Supremacists justifying Native American genocide, or do you stand with Native Americans?

    To correct the record, what European colonizers found in the Americas were thousands of complex, sophisticated, and sovereign Tribal Nations, each with millennia of distinct cultural, spiritual and technological development. Over millennia, they bred, cultivated and showed the world how to utilize such plants as cotton, rubber, chocolate, corn, potatoes, tomatoes and tobacco. Imagine the history of the United States without the economic contributions of cotton and tobacco alone. It’s inconceivable.


Crystal Echo Hawk, the executive director of IllumiNative, a nonprofit focused on combating the erasure of Native Americans, also called on CNN to fire Santorum.

“American history that does not include Native peoples is a lie, and Rick Santorum is fueling white supremacy by erasing the history of Native peoples,” said Echo Hawk. “CNN must do more to include Indigenous and diverse voices in its programming and fire Rick Santorum.”

A request for comment from CNN was not immediately returned.

rp

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
Colonialism as viewed by Westerners
« Reply #5 on: April 28, 2021, 11:58:10 pm »
https://twitter.com/Africa_Archives/status/1377596265446436868?s=19
Quote
A picture from 1955 during the French occupation of the Congo, when a father brought an African child in a cage  to his children at home for entertainment.
 

Notice the gleeful expression of the children. This illustrates they are complicit. They are not children. They are demons, created in the image of Yahweh.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2021, 12:52:22 am by rp »

guest5

  • Guest
Re: Colonialism as viewed by Westerners
« Reply #6 on: April 29, 2021, 10:50:44 pm »

guest5

  • Guest
Re: Colonialism as viewed by Westerners
« Reply #7 on: May 01, 2021, 12:04:03 am »
Rep Wants 'Good' Parts of Slavery Be Taught in Schools
Quote
This rep tried to suggest that there are ‘good’ parts to slavery that should be taught in schools — and naturally got shut down.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qkm5ayhB-4M

This rep also proved that no amount of schooling can help a complete imbecile such as himself.

rp

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
Re: Colonialism as viewed by Westerners
« Reply #8 on: May 02, 2021, 01:43:25 am »
Boris Johnson (Gentile) recites colonialist poem by racist Rudyard Kipling in Myanmar temple:
https://youtu.be/OqLIm0HOvuQ

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7398
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Colonialism as viewed by Westerners
« Reply #9 on: June 12, 2021, 10:21:23 pm »
Well, this is an interpretation I have never heard before!

https://www.yahoo.com/news/north-carolina-plantation-faces-controversy-220800419.html

Quote
NC plantation faces controversy for Juneteenth event referring to slaveowners as ‘white refugees’
...
The post did not appear to mention how the formerly enslaved were adjusting to their new freedom. Instead, the emphasis seemed to be more on how the white people around them felt about these perceived setbacks in their lives. Furthermore, the enslaved are referred to only as “bondsmen,” and derisively “living high on the hog.”

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7398
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile

rp

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
Re: Colonialism as viewed by Westerners
« Reply #11 on: June 15, 2021, 10:07:26 pm »
First, it was "poor White people didn't own any slaves!", and now this...

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7398
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Colonialism as viewed by Westerners
« Reply #12 on: July 08, 2021, 12:58:51 am »
https://us.yahoo.com/news/fox-news-host-says-native-143105140.html

Quote
Fox News host says Native American land 'wasn't stolen': 'We won this land on the battlefield'

Fortunately the Twitter commenters responded promptly:

Quote
"This money wasn't stolen, officer. It was taken at gunpoint. I won it fair and square at gunpoint, so it's mine!"

Quote
“This is my car. I didn’t steal it. I won it during the carjack”

Quote
"It wasn't robbery, it was ARMED robbery. So it's cool."

Quote
How dare you say I stole your house!
I came into your house, beat you up, I got your family sick, raped and killed some of them, but we battled, and then when I defeated you, I offered you a **** ton of free booze and gave you some land over down by the dump that I didn’t want.

etc.

But the truly revealing thing is that Watters said "we", hence he is voluntarily self-identifying with the Western colonialists. Which of course means we should treat him as one.

More about Watters:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Watters#Controversies

Quote
In October 2016, Watters was criticized for a segment of Watters' World that was widely considered racist toward Asian Americans.[20][21][22] In New York City's Chinatown, Watters asked Chinese Americans if they knew karate (which originates from Japan, not China), if he should bow before he greets them, or if their watches were stolen.[21][23] Throughout the segment, the 1974 song "Kung Fu Fighting" plays in the background, and the interviews are interspersed with references to martial arts and clips of Watters getting a foot massage and playing with nunchucks.[22][23]
« Last Edit: July 08, 2021, 01:03:15 am by 90sRetroFan »

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7398
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Colonialism as viewed by Westerners
« Reply #13 on: August 13, 2021, 10:08:48 pm »
Our enemies in their own words:

https://vdare.com/posts/the-five-hundredth-anniversary-of-the-fall-of-tenochtitlan-and-the-birth-of-mexico

Quote
The truth of the matter is that the Spanish Conquest, whatever one thinks of it, is the true origin of the Mexican nation.  Mexico as we know it would not exist if not for the Spanish Conquest.

For starters, the majority of Mexicans are mestizos, with both Indian and European ancestors. Therefore, the majority of today’s Mexicans would definitely not exist today had it not been for the Spanish conquest of Mexico and the resulting racial mixture.
...
Yes, by all means, Mexicans should commemorate the Fall of Tenochtitlan. But they should do so in a manner respectful of both their Indian and European forebears, who made them what they are today.

If one of my parents raped the other to conceive me, am I supposed to be "respectful" to both?

guest55

  • Guest
Re: Colonialism as viewed by Westerners
« Reply #14 on: August 13, 2021, 10:55:09 pm »
Quote
Thomas wrote that when looking back at the destruction of the Aztec Empire and the conquest of other Indigenous peoples in the Americas, European colonizers have tried to justify the violence by denouncing Indigenous communities' brutal acts of human sacrifice and murder.

In the case of the Aztecs, the Spanish condemned how priests tore out the hearts of prisoners and slaves and wore the skins of their victims inside out. Both British and American colonists similarly seized upon the action of scalping by some Native Americans to defend violent reprisals.

Yet historians say the magnitude of violence the Spanish conquest had on Mexico — as well as the destruction perpetrated by other European conquests in the Americas — is undeniable.

Thomas referred to a letter from Pedro de Maluenda, a commissary working with Cortés, which said making the trip back from Tenochtitlán to Veracruz was like traveling from hell to heaven.

The historian described a devastated city in the wake of the Spanish conquest, with defeated Aztecs leaving their homes in smoke and ruins and the streets of their capital full of unburied bodies.

To put the size of the destruction into perspective, Thomas described Sevilla, Spain’s biggest city at the time, as “probably a mere quarter of the size of Tenochtitlán.” The Aztec capital was bigger than any other city the Spanish soldiers had seen.

“If the lake dwellers [the Aztecs] were fascinated [by the Spanish], Cortés and his men also felt awe,” the historian wrote. “For in front of them lay a city as large as any that anyone in his party had seen — though Naples and Constantinople, with over 200,000 people each, ran Tenochtitlán close.”
https://news.yahoo.com/500-years-spanish-conquest-still-194008119.html

Obviously that denouncement by the Spanish was all horse-shyte if you take into account the Spanish inquisition and subsequent persecutions by the Judeo-Greco-Christian Vatican!