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

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7398
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Colonialism as viewed by Westerners
« Reply #15 on: October 03, 2021, 11:50:41 pm »
Our enemies clarify their position:

https://counter-currents.com/2021/09/indigenous-isnt-our-term/

Quote
The popularity of anti-colonialism and the term “indigenous” speaks to our anti-white age. We’re told all white-founded colonial countries are stolen land and that the true owners were dispossessed. “Indigenous Peoples’ Day” now replaces Columbus Day. This discourse makes ordinary people think that land has a rightful owner, and that that owner is never white.

However, some Right-wingers think we can utilize this discourse for our own purposes. Whites can be indigenous, too, and we are victimized by colonialism, they argue. They think that by appealing to the zeitgeist, we can be more in tune with the times. A few may even think it might create a degree of solidarity with other “indigenous” peoples fighting against the imperialist menace.

But this idea won’t work. This framework is inherently anti-white. We’re not going to trick Left-wing indigenous activists into supporting our cause. Moreover, this would entail condemning our own past on behalf of a misguided political strategy.

Much of this was pointed out in a great article by one “Stone Age Herbalist” for the site Countere. Herbalist argues that this “indigenous” appeal is a poor strategy and that “we should instead be asserting that our nations and identities are legitimate precisely because our ancestors conquered, fought, and died for the land, not because we are mythically indigenous to it.”
...
That is why Herbalist argues it is better to rely on the right of conquest to morally defend ourselves. Like all peoples who claim a homeland, America was purchased through the blood and toil of our ancestors. The fact that we won this land makes it ours, not through some appeal to a concept invented by Leftists.
...
How can we say America is our land when we took it from someone else? How are we supposed to celebrate the great warriors and statesmen of our past when their glories came at the expense of the vanquished? How do we reconcile our entire national history with an anti-colonialist framework if we’ve always been the colonizers? All of these foundations are given away for the sake of a poorly thought out political strategy.
...
We have nothing to feel ashamed about. The right of conquest makes this land ours. There’s no need to defer to Leftist theories to uphold our birthright.

They also reveal that they still do not understand what conquest is. Conquest is when one state takes territory from another state. For example, if State A conquers the territory of State B, all that changes is that the existing residents of that territory, who were former taxpayers to B, now become taxpayers to A instead. When you deport the existing residents from the territory, you are not conquering, but stealing.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2021, 11:53:07 pm by 90sRetroFan »

Zea_mays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 546
    • View Profile
Re: Colonialism as viewed by Westerners
« Reply #16 on: October 06, 2021, 02:54:30 pm »
This article looks back on the history curriculum some prominent right-wing politicians were taught in school. These politicians, of course, have called teaching things like slavery "left-wing propaganda".

Not surprisingly, a lot of these politicians are so old they literally went to segregated schools. Racist textbooks continue to this day, however:

Quote
Tom Cotton, a 1995 graduate of Dardanelle High School, likely learned his American History from The American Pageant.
[...]

Cotton’s text never explicitly says the Civil War was about slavery or even refers to it as a “Civil War.” Instead, it carefully couches the “War for Southern Independence” as a clash that had to do with tariffs, Northern overreach, blah, blah, blah. The book also doesn’t quote any of the actual declarations of secession, only noting that the “rebel” Jefferson Davis told the despotic “King” Abraham Lincoln: “All we ask is to be let alone.”

And, of course, the textbook describes the period after the Civil War:

    Unbending loyalty to “ole Massa” prompted many slaves to help their owners resist the Union Armies. Blacks blocked the door of the “big house” with their bodies or stashed the plantation silverware under mattresses in their own humble huts, where it would be safe from the plundering “bluebellies”...Newly emancipated slaves sometimes eagerly accepted the invitation of Union troops to join in the pillaging of their master’s possessions.

This would be a theme throughout many of the textbooks. The few passages that described the lives of Black people were usually crafted from single-sourced narratives of enslavers or other white people. “The-thing-that-happened-that-one-time” becomes the mold for “this is how the slaves were,” which is the literal definition of stereotyping.

Perhaps the only thing more racist than this textbook is the name “Tom Cotton,” which sounds like the person you have to fight when you defeat all the other slave masters.
https://www.theroot.com/we-found-the-textbooks-of-senators-who-oppose-the-1619-1846832317

The problem of school textbooks being Western propaganda and ignoring the ignoble aspects of Western civilization has been pointed out for decades. (Although, unfortunately, books like this did not propose a leftist/pro-American competing narrative, so it has led only to cynicism on the left):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies_My_Teacher_Told_Me

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7398
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Colonialism as viewed by Westerners
« Reply #17 on: October 13, 2021, 09:35:59 pm »
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/09/world/europe/spain-conservatives-conquistadors.html

Quote
In a letter to Mexican bishops last month, Pope Francis called for a revisiting of the country’s history, especially the role of the Roman Catholic Church, and urged clergy members to “recognize the painful errors committed in the past.”

Yet it wasn’t in Mexico where his remarks drew controversy, but in Spain, where the right wing soon rallied behind the country’s role in conquering the Americas, alongside the church, more than 500 years ago.

Isabel Díaz Ayuso, the conservative leader of Madrid, said she was surprised that “a Catholic who speaks Spanish would talk that way,” adding that Spain had brought “civilization and freedom” to the Americas. And a former prime minister said he was proud of the conquest.
...
It’s particularly troubling in a country that is still burdened by the not-so-distant memory of Francisco Franco’s dictatorship. Franco ruled until his death in 1975, stoking nationalist sentiment with hallowed symbols like the cross, the flag and bullfighting.
...
Founded in 2013 by a politician who broke with the Popular Party, Vox has leaned deep into Spain’s nationalist taboos and at times has defended Franco. Its anti-immigrant stances, considered racist by critics, drew praise from figures like Stephen K. Bannon, Donald Trump’s former adviser, who advised Vox as well.

The party’s growth — it’s now the third-largest in the national Parliament — has some veteran politicians concerned that conservatives are increasingly tempted to follow Vox further to the right.

On Sunday, the Popular Party president, Pablo Casado, laid out the group’s platform in a fiery speech from the floor of a bullfighting ring. He surprised some analysts with a hardened tone against immigration, abortion and a separatist movement in the Catalonia region.
...
Then José María Aznar, a former prime minister, defended the Spanish conquest at the party’s national convention last week.

“I’m inclined to feel very proud of it, I’m not asking for forgiveness,” he said of the colonial era.
...
In an interview in her office this week, Ms. Ayuso said there was nothing radical about defending the Spanish conquest of the Americas. She accused those who were pushing the historical debate of promoting a kind of left-wing identity politics, which she sees as the main source of the country’s divisions.

I suppose bullfighting similarly brought "civilization and freedom" to the bulls?

Zea_mays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 546
    • View Profile
Re: Colonialism as viewed by Westerners
« Reply #18 on: January 25, 2022, 01:35:31 am »
Quote
Ron DeSantis Pushes Florida Bill to Protect White People From 'Guilt' About Racist Past

Governor Ron DeSantis' attempts to ban critical race theory in Florida moved forward on Tuesday as an education panel gave first approval to a bill that would prohibit schools and private businesses from making people feel "guilt" about the country's racist past.

The state's Republican-controlled Senate Education Committee approved the legislation—called "Individual Freedom"—in a vote along party lines.

The bill would bar employers from subjecting "any individual, as a condition of employment, membership, certification, licensing, credentialing or passing an examination, to training, instruction, or any other required activity" that promotes certain concepts related to race and racism.

For instance, it would prohibit employers from providing training that "espouses, promotes, advances, inculcates, or compels" people to believe they bear "responsibility for, or should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of, actions committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, sex, or national origin."
https://www.newsweek.com/ron-desantis-pushes-florida-bill-protect-white-people-guilt-racist-past-1670661

Quote
It also prohibits making people "feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin."

So, is he going to abolish the very concept of "whiteness", which has inflicted, and continues to inflict, so much psychological and physical distress on people across the world?


Quote
State Senator Shevrin Jones, the sole Black lawmaker on the Florida education committee, told the Associated Press the legislation was designed to make white people "not feel bad about what happened years ago" and would lead to censorship in schools.

    We are responsible for our future in ensuring that what happened back then NEVER happens again! We can’t get there by hiding the truth, we get there by exposing it. https://t.co/fCtcK5rnfn
    — Shevrin “Shev” Jones (@ShevrinJones) January 19, 2022

Yes, Westerners accuse us of destroying history--meanwhile, they are the ones who attempt to make it illegal to actually study real history.

Quote
But State Senator Manny Diaz, a Republican lawmaker and the bill's sponsor, told the AP that the legislation was not about ignoring the "dark" parts of American history, but ensuring that people were not blamed for the nation's past sins.

Those who perpetuate and admire Western Civilization continue the perpetuation of the same evil that caused those tragedies in the past. So long as people remain Confederate sympathizers, white supremacists, and carriers of Western Civilization, we are still fighting the same battle as the past. What's going on now is merely a continuation.

So, yes, "whites" and Westerners can 100% be blamed for everything that happened in the past, since they embrace it and do all in their power to keep the injustice going.

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7398
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Colonialism as viewed by Westerners
« Reply #19 on: March 31, 2022, 10:08:51 pm »
What did the Renaissance-era Vatican think of colonialism?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/first-nations-members-urge-pope-160109773.html

Quote
Members of the Assembly of First Nations on Thursday pressed Pope Francis to revoke 15th century papal orders used to justify colonialism.

The decrees, issued in 1455 and 1493, approved of colonial explorers’ seizure of Indigenous land in Africa and the Americas and were used in the Doctrine of Discovery
, according to CBC News.
...
“Because we didn’t have souls, that gave the right for these explorers to do whatever they wanted with Indigenous Peoples — murder, ****, enslave,” Kaluhyanu:wes Michelle Schenandoah, an Oneida Nation member, explained, according to CBC.

Schenandoah added that “the doctrine has placed us in this place of being invisible and dispensable.”

In short, the Vatican's ethics matched its aesthetics:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/western-civilization-is-ugly-48/msg3961/#msg3961

The correct response by victims of Western colonialism is, of course, not merely to request that Francis revokes the edicts, but to raze the entirety of the Vatican to rubble and put Francis' head on a stick.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2022, 10:23:49 pm by 90sRetroFan »

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7398
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Colonialism as viewed by Westerners
« Reply #20 on: April 02, 2022, 10:50:38 pm »
https://www.yahoo.com/news/britain-no-longer-hide-behind-110037277.html

Quote
Britain Can No Longer Hide Behind the Myth That Its Empire Was Benign
...
In the eyes of others, Britain was the purveyor of a liberal imperialism, or “civilizing mission,” that was the standard-bearer for all other empires. For sure, there were blots, like the trade in enslaved peoples, but on history’s balance sheet, any ill-begotten wealth had been more than atoned for through Britain’s largesse.

According to empire’s supporters, after spearheading the abolition movement, Britain launched its civilizing mission, transforming humanity. Sprawling across a quarter of the globe, the nineteenth and twentieth-century British Empire was the largest in history. Its developmentalist policies, which cleaved to racial hierarchies, allegedly brought 700 million colonized subjects, considered “backward” and “childlike,” into the modern world.

When its colonies moved towards independence in the 20th century, Britain declared its civilizing mission a triumph. Its subjects had “grown up,”
taking their seat at the Commonwealth of Nations table. Today, the Commonwealth, comprised of 54 countries, most of which were former British colonies, is still headed by Queen Elizabeth II.

False Leftists want "non-whites" to prove they can do grown-up things (machinism, space travel, etc.) as well as or better than "whites" can, instead of encouraging them to admit "whites" really are more grown-up and that is precisely why they are more evil.

Quote
How we in the present remember the past, and how this past is deployed, has profound implications. In June 2016, for instance, Britain voted to leave the European Union, and memories of empire played no small role. The Conservative Party’s Brexit campaign touted a “Global Britain” vision, an Empire 2.0. “Churchill was right when he said that the empires of the future will be empires of the mind and in expressing our values I believe that Global Britain is a soft power superpower and that we can be immensely proud of what we are achieving,” Prime Minister Boris Johnson recently declared.

How did we arrive here? How do we in the present understand the past and the ways in which it shapes the world in which we’re living? Such questions were thrown into relief when the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge embarked on an eight-day Caribbean tour. It was intended to commemorate the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee, and to affirm her authority as the symbolic head of state presiding over 15 countries comprising the Commonwealth Realm.

Before departing, the young royals were given a history lesson, and warning, by academics and activists in the form of a letter. Chronicling Britain’s role in exploiting Jamaica through its use of enslaved labor and brutal colonial rule, it demanded accountability. Paying no heed, the duke and duchess forged ahead. Posters declaring “#SehYuhSorry and make REPARATIONS” greeted them in Jamaica, and the duke’s expression of “profound sorrow” for the “appalling atrocity of slavery” did little to quell demands for a colonial reckoning.

His carefully choreographed presence was part of the problem. In full white military dress, with the duchess, also clad in white, by his side, the duke stood in an open-aired Land Rover, once used by the Queen during her 1952 royal tour, to inspect the Jamaican Defense Force parade. The optics, reminiscent of Lord Louis Mountbatten, India’s last viceroy, and his wife Edwina, during the final days of the Raj, drew swift backlash for their jaw-dropping colonial symbolism.

Wrapping up his ill-fated trip, the chastened duke turned to the monarchy’s age-old imperial play book, long an extension of the British government’s, for answers. Choosing his words carefully, he reaffirmed his belief in Britain’s civilizing mission, dedicating himself to the “Commonwealth family,” a cornerstone of the Conservative Party’s Empire 2.0. Yet, the monarchy’s ability to maintain its fictions, and Britain’s, clearly hang in the balance. “This tour has brought into even sharper focus questions about the past and the future,” the duke conceded.

Questions about Britain’s imperial past have, arguably, never been more salient, playing out in the nation’s streets, the floor of Parliament, and in the media. Historians, myself included, have much to say about this. I maintain that the question isn’t whether or not Britain’s empire was violent, because it was. The issues demanding sharper focus are how and why extraordinary coercion, endemic to the structures and systems of British rule, was deployed, and what methods Britain used to cover it up.

During the empire’s heyday, British officials were obsessed with the “rule of law,” claiming this was the basis of good government. But good government in empire was liberalism’s fever dream. Its rule of law codified difference, curtailed freedoms, expropriated land and property, and ensured a steady stream of labor for the mines and plantations, the proceeds from which helped fuel Britain’s economy.

After Britain waged some 250 wars in the nineteenth century to “pacify” colonial subjects, violent conflicts—big and small— were recurring as colonial officials imposed and maintained British sovereignty over populations who ostensibly never had it. When the colonized demanded basic rights over their own bodies and freedoms, British officials often criminalized them, cast their actions—including vandalism, labor strikes, riots, and full-blown insurgencies—as political threats, and invested police forces and the military with legally conferred powers for repression. To justify these measures, Britain deployed its developmentalist framework, pointing to the “moral effect” of violence, a necessary element for reforming unruly “natives.”

The British attitude towards those whom they colonized is an exact parallel of parents' attitude towards their offspring. So why not emphasize this? Why instead attempt (as the False Left does) to portray the colonized as somehow more grown-up than the colonizers?

Quote
By the twentieth century, Britain’s empire was replete with declarations of martial law and states of emergency needed to maintain order. A well-oiled bureaucratic and legal machinery for repression emerged, transferred from one part of empire to another by colonial and military officials.

But in the post-World War II era of updated humanitarian laws, and new human rights conventions, British repression—which included widespread use of torture—was legally and politically problematic. British governments repeatedly denied their repressive measures in the empire while ordering the wide-scale destruction of incriminating evidence. Fragments remained, however, and historians have reassembled them, puncturing the myths of paternalism and progress, and demonstrating liberalism’s perfidiousness across the empire and at home. Our role now is to ensure that the broader public is aware of our findings—findings that often confirm the lived experiences and memories of formerly colonized populations.

Ultimately, Britain’s civilizing mission was always pregnant with conflict. Even if it took centuries, subject populations would “grow up,” and Britain would have to concede its sovereign claims to empire when its discerning eye judged the once “uncivilized” to be fully evolved. This when was always elusive, however. That Jamaica, Belize, and the Bahamas remain in the Commonwealth Realm, with the Queen as its symbolic head of state, and the monarchy still peddling the idea of a “Commonwealth family,” begs the question of whether this when is still elusive, at least in the minds of some. It is, indeed, a question the future heir to the throne, and others who maintain Britain’s uniquely “civilizing” past and present, should ponder.



Related:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/leftists-against-progressivism/
« Last Edit: May 02, 2022, 10:08:44 pm by 90sRetroFan »

rp

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
Re: Colonialism as viewed by Westerners
« Reply #21 on: April 03, 2022, 07:17:07 am »
This confirms my suspicion that the "British" (Albion) colonialism was driven more by False Left humanism/paternalism than right wing ethnotribalism . It's just that the False Leftists of those times had a more positive view of Western Civilization than the False Leftists of today.

In terms of anti-colonial propaganda, this could help us as we can now accuse the False Leftists of sharing the same views as the colonialists, whereas previously we would only accuse them of "siding" with the colonialists.

But of course this also means we cannot attack the colonialists for being ethnotribalists alone.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2022, 07:21:27 am by rp »

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7398
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Colonialism as viewed by Westerners
« Reply #22 on: May 15, 2022, 10:32:18 pm »
An enemy eulogy:

https://counter-currents.com/2022/05/remembering-hinton-rowan-helper/

Quote
Hinton Rowan Helper was a curious and fascinating figure from nineteenth-century American history. Although mostly forgotten today, he was one of the most important and discussed men in the nation during the lead-up to the Civil War. As an unswerving race realist and white patriot at a time when whites were by far the dominant racial group in North America, he was (and probably still is) ahead of his time.
...
Born in North Carolina in 1829, Helper always had a strong racial identity. This was solidified when, as a young man, he was exposed to the incipient Chinese population in California as well as to the lingering Hispanic and Native American presence there. He understood the superiority of whites as civilization-builders and developed a contempt for non-whites. He also wasn’t shy about expressing this contempt to anyone who would listen. Filters, apparently, were for the weak.

In The Land of Gold, his memoir of his time in California, he describes Native Americans as “inexcusably ignorant and abominably filthy.” He accuses Mexicans of practicing “the lowest debaucheries throughout the week.” Of the Chinese he writes, “I cannot perceive what more right these semi-barbarians have in California than flocks of blackbirds have in a wheatfield.” Ouch.

He further opines that

[n]o inferior race of men can exist in these United States without becoming sub-ordinate to the will of the Anglo-Saxons, or foregoing many of the necessities and comforts of life.

Nothing aroused Helper’s visceral indignation, however, more than blacks.
...
In his 1867 book, Nojoque, A Question for a Continent, Helper presented extensive evidence for blacks’ inferiority and argued for their permanent removal from American life.
...
[Helper] concluded that “from the hair of his head to the extremities of his hands and feet,“ every part of the Negro, “however large, or however small, whether internal or external, whether physical or mental, or moral, loses in comparison with the white, much in the same ratio or proportion as darkness loses in comparison with light, or as evil loses in comparison with good.”
...
He also offers a list of characteristics in which Negroes compare unfavorably with whites. Included are such subjective criteria as “curved knees,” “calfless legs,” and “Malodorous Exhalations.”
...
In 1877, while on a trip to South America, he was forced to stop in Dakar off the west coast of Africa, and was anxious to view the Negro in his native habitat. Of course, he was appalled and disgusted by the poverty and depravity all around, and regretted that he had no “Orsini bombs” with which to smash it all.
...
Helper conceded that association with whites brought partial elevation to the Negro, but he felt that the gain, unfortunately, was offset by a corresponding degradation of the whites. The presence of large numbers of Negroes in the South explained the Northern superiority in many fields. “While we are cursed with the black imps of Africa,” he wrote, “you there are blessed with the white genii of Europe.”

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7398
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Colonialism as viewed by Westerners
« Reply #23 on: June 02, 2022, 08:52:47 pm »
With the issue of residential schools recently raised:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/canada-residential-schools/

here is our enemies' perspective:

https://www.eurocanadians.ca/2022/06/the-myth-of-the-native-american-mass-graves.html

Quote
Did you know that the children of the nomadic Siberian Nenets tribe are sent to boarding school for nine months each year to learn the basics of civilization?
...
Does this mean they are coerced? Of course not. It’s not the evil civilized White people forcing them. Like all responsible parents, Nenet parents who want the best for their children, know very well that they need to learn how to live in the modern world.

I agree that the Nenet parents betrayed their offspring by not waging total war on the "whites" to the death rather than submitting to the previously nonexistent institution of compulsory schooling. But this does not exonerate the "whites" from declaring the schools to be compulsory in the first place. The children were indeed coerced, by a combination of "white" oppression and their own parents' cowardice.

Quote
After their education which lasts several years, most of them do not want to return to the tundra. The most gifted become lawyers, doctors, or researchers, the others find a job of some kind and integrate themselves into the society that raised them. Nobody forces them. They themselves choose where they want to live and how. And that’s a good thing.

Did they get to choose whether or not to receive schooling in the first place? They did not. They were forced. To say they choose how to live after their compulsory education is no different than saying victims of torture choose to cooperate with their torturers after the torture.

Quote
Russians have great respect for the hundreds of ethnic groups that have lived on their territory since time immemorial. They want things to go well and everyone to be happy.

Oh please:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/russia-the-last-colonial-empire/msg7661/#msg7661

Continuing:

Quote
And so did the Missionaries who taught the Aboriginals in residential schools. By vocation they were also sincerely concerned about their students who just like the Nenets were to be civilized for their own good.

A.k.a. it's OK for missionaries to be "white".

Quote
Since their parents lived in the wilderness sometimes far from the boarding schools, they could not be sent back to their families on weekends as they would today. There were no roads or buses. In order to adapt them as well as possible, it made more sense to keep these children in boarding school for several months.

It would have made most sense for schools to not be compulsory.

Quote
But despite this long stay away from their parents, many of them like the prominent Aboriginal playwright Tomson Highway and the late band chief Cece Hodgson-McCauley greatly enjoyed their time at their schools. “Nine of the happiest years of my life were spent at that school…some people have been badmouthing residential schools for money,” the chief told the Huffington Post and CBC. (1)

Fine, let those who enjoy school attend voluntarily and let those who do not enjoy school not be forced to attend.

Quote
At the time of the so-called mass graves, the child mortality rate was close to 40%. Aboriginal people were less resistant to disease than Europeans. Residential schools were overcrowded and hygiene was sometimes poor. Malnutrition, tuberculosis, typhus, Spanish flu (1917-1921) and several other infectious diseases were rampant. There were no antibiotics to treat them. Is it any wonder that many died? Of course not!

In other words, their deaths could have been avoided if the schools were less crowded, and the schools would have been less crowded if attendance had not been compulsory.

Quote
Truth be told, before their evangelization and education in boarding schools by missionaries, Native Americans were not noble, good, kind, or innocent as portrayed in the movie. They were savages of unprecedented cruelty; primitives who practiced cannibalism and slavery; warriors who spent their time fighting over territory.

No one is claiming Native Americans are flawless (just earlier in this post I was calling them cowards). Nevertheless, cannibalism of war enemies is far better than killing innocent victims expressly for the purpose of eating them. "Whites" were also practicing slavery and fighting over territory. But Native Americans did not have compulsory schooling. So who are worse?

Quote
You can easily see this hatred of White Catholics and Whites in general almost on a daily basis in the media and in the movies.

For good reason!
« Last Edit: June 09, 2022, 08:24:03 pm by 90sRetroFan »

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7398
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Colonialism as viewed by Westerners
« Reply #24 on: June 09, 2022, 09:00:25 pm »
https://counter-currents.com/2022/06/thomas-nelson-pages-social-life-in-old-virginia-before-the-war/

Quote
What was life like in the antebellum South? Obviously it’s going to be a matter of perspective. Thomas Nelson Page provided one such viewpoint, the type we seldom hear about lately. He was a lawyer in his early career and a diplomat later, but is best known as a writer.
...
They possessed the faults and the virtues of young men of their kind and condition. They were given to self-indulgence; they were not broad in their limitations; they were apt to contemn what did not accord with their own established views (for their views were established before their mustaches); they were wasteful of time and energies beyond belief; they were addicted to the pursuit of pleasure. They exhibited the customary failings of their kind in a society of an aristocratic character. But they possessed in full measure the corresponding virtues. They were brave, they were generous, they were high-spirited. Indulgence in pleasure did not destroy them.

I hardly need to point out that what Page calls "aristocratic character" is actually barbarism.

Quote
he had nothing but praise for the young ladies:

She was the incontestable proof of their gentility. In right of her blood (the beautiful Saxon, tempered by the influences of the genial Southern clime), she was exquisite, fine, beautiful; a creature of peach-blossom and snow; languid, delicate, saucy; now imperious, now melting, always bewitching. She was not versed in the ways of the world, but she had no need to be; she was better than that; she was well bred. She had not to learn to be a lady, because she was born one. Generations had given her that by heredity.

Page goes on for page after page singing the praises of Southern belles.

It can be reduced to three words: high sexual dimorphism.

Quote
I recall a butler, “Uncle Tom,” an austere gentleman, who was the terror of the juniors of the connection. One of the children, after watching him furtively as he moved about with grand air, when he had left the room and his footsteps had died away, crept over and asked her grandmother, his mistress, in an awed whisper, “Grandma, are you ‘fraid of Unc’ Tom?”

The Driver was the ally of the boys, the worshipper of the girls, and consequently had an ally in their mother, the mistress. As the head of the stable, he was an important personage. This comradeship was never forgotten; it lasted through life. The years might grow on him, his eyes might become dim; but he was left in command even when he was too feeble to hold the horses; and though he might no longer grasp the reins, he at least held the title, and to the end was always “the Driver of Mistiss’s carriage.”


The rest of the household servants included the following:

Other servants too there were with special places and privileges, — gardeners and “boys about the house,” comrades of the boys; and “own maids,” for each girl had her “own maid.” They all formed one great family in the social structure now passed away, a structure incredible by those who knew it not, and now, under new conditions, almost incredible by those who knew it best.
...
Nearly the entire second half of the book is about various aristocratic diversions such as horse racing, fox hunting, and square dancing

Again, Page's notion of "aristocratic" is everything but.

Quote
Nearing the end, the author begins a summation:

That the social life of the Old South had its faults I am far from denying. What civilization has not? But its virtues far outweighed them; its graces were never equalled. For all its faults, it was, I believe, the purest, sweetest life ever lived.

Because apparently fox hunting, horse racing and being waited on by slaves is so much purer than asceticism (which is the true aristocratic path).....

Quote
Then he names Dixie’s accomplishments, a long list which includes the following:

It christianized the negro race in a little over two centuries, impressed upon it regard for order, and gave it the only civilization it has ever possessed since the dawn of history. It has maintained the supremacy of the Caucasian race, upon which all civilization seems now to depend.

I will just post the photo our enemies included to show that Page's face is about as "aristocratic" as his writing is:

« Last Edit: June 09, 2022, 10:41:10 pm by 90sRetroFan »
Funny Funny x 1 View List

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7398
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Colonialism as viewed by Westerners
« Reply #25 on: June 25, 2022, 04:09:50 am »
Our enemies in their own words on what they think of their victims:

https://www.eurocanadians.ca/2022/06/two-white-girls-call-for-re-imagining-the-future-of-canmore-alberta-as-an-indigenous-land-where-all-living-beings-are-respected.html

Quote
Most Eurocanadians are not “settlers on these lands”. Although we are indigenous to Europe, Canada is our homeland too.

Stop marginalising us in the country that our ancestors (not the Native tribes’ ancestors) built.

I am also not subject to Treaty 7 of 1877; I have no affiliation with the relevant tribes to the treaty. I am a subject of Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada.
...
at no point in this treaty are the Indigenous nation signatories referred to as sovereign or self-determining. They are, however, referred to as “Her [Queen Victoria’s] Indian subjects”, and that the chiefs are responsible for the “faithful performance… of such obligations as should be assumed by them”.

It is stated directly:

    the Blackfeet, Blood, Piegan, Sarcee, Stony and other Indians inhabiting the district hereinafter more fully described and defined, do hereby cede, release, surrender, and yield up to the Government of Canada for Her Majesty the Queen and her successors for ever, all their rights, titles, and privileges whatsoever to the lands included within the following limits… to have and to hold the same to Her Majesty the Queen and her successors for ever.
...
One has to wonder what such an indigenous declaration of sovereignty would really reward them with though. Any sensible person would not want to see, for example, the entirety of the Province of Saskatchewan become an enormous version of Red Pheasant reserve. Then again, if I was dealing with sensible people, my article for the CEC would be unnecessary. I quote my chapter ‘On Imperial European Civilisation’: “the conquest of the continent known at present as North America by the European empires was one of the greatest events to occur in human history”, and that we must not be ashamed for our ancestors’ disruption of the Stone Age societies that were here first.

Even as I write this, I interrupted my work to go get a Swiffer to dust my desk. What a brilliant innovation that I can, for a low cost, buy a disposable slice of fabric impregnated (is that a triggering word for feminists?) with static electricity to better remove dust from flat surfaces. Would such an innovation have ever been seen on this continent if its development had not risen above and beyond the hunter-gatherer level? Not a chance.


Our enemies' claim that the inhabitants of North America were all hunter-gatherers/nomads prior to Western colonialism is of course a lie:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_in_Canada#Archaic_period

Quote
The North American climate stabilized by 8000 BCE (10,000 years ago); climatic conditions were very similar to today's.[67] This led to widespread migration, cultivation and later a dramatic rise in population all over the Americas.[67] Over the course of thousands of years, Indigenous peoples of the Americas domesticated, bred and cultivated a large array of plant species. These species now constitute 50–60% of all crops in cultivation worldwide.[68]
...
The Woodland cultural period dates from about 2,000 BCE – 1,000 CE, and has locales in Ontario, Quebec, and Maritime regions.[80] The introduction of pottery distinguishes the Woodland culture from the earlier Archaic stage inhabitants. Laurentian people of southern Ontario manufactured the oldest pottery excavated to date in Canada.[69] They created pointed-bottom beakers decorated by a cord marking technique that involved impressing tooth implements into wet clay. Woodland technology included items such as beaver incisor knives, bangles, and chisels. The population practising sedentary agricultural life ways continued to increase on a diet of squash, corn, and bean crops.[69]

Also, the following invention is (not parody!) what makes Western colonialism justified, according to our enemies:



And this is a good example of why everyone on our side must ASAP give up thinking that racists can be taught to stop being racist:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/superiority-cannot-be-taught/

The only way to end racism is to end eliminate racist bloodlines.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2022, 09:15:03 pm by 90sRetroFan »

rp

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
Re: Colonialism as viewed by Westerners
« Reply #26 on: June 25, 2022, 12:31:07 pm »
"We don't owe fairness to.anyone that is not our people"
Spoken like a proper tribalist.

SirGalahad

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 195
    • View Profile
Re: Colonialism as viewed by Westerners
« Reply #27 on: June 25, 2022, 10:16:24 pm »
The first people to say "We conquered this land fair and square" are simultaneously the first people to cry out "This is white genocide! I can't believe you want to wipe out our beautiful cultures! I thought you leftists loved diversity!" the moment they're met with not even actual widespread violence against "white" people, but voluntary immigration. The Jew cracker cries out in pain as he strikes you
« Last Edit: June 25, 2022, 10:18:21 pm by SirGalahad »

guest30

  • Guest
Re: Colonialism as viewed by Westerners
« Reply #28 on: June 30, 2022, 03:49:06 pm »


Quote
"...Most Eurocanadians are not “settlers on these lands”. Although we are indigenous to Europe, Canada is our homeland too. ..."

Jews : "...Most of Jewish people are not "settlers on these lands". Althouth we are indigenous to Europe, Canaan is our homeland too. ..."


90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7398
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Colonialism as viewed by Westerners
« Reply #29 on: July 16, 2022, 09:10:49 pm »
Our enemies on Calhoun:

https://www.amren.com/features/2022/07/americas-greatest-political-thinker-since-the-founders/

Quote
Calhoun wrote:

    I only know of one principle to make a nation great, and that is, to protect every citizen in the lawful pursuit of his business. He will then feel that he is backed by the government, that its arm is his arms, and will rejoice in its increased strength and prosperity. Protection and patriotism are reciprocal. This is the road that all great nations have trod.(94)

OK, but who is "every citizen"? Certainly not everyone who wants to be a citizen:

Quote
Calhoun’s doctrine does not serve everyone. Richard Hofstadter had reason to call him the “Marx of the master class.” Progressives would say his views bias the state in favor of property holders and current citizens. It means that non-citizens, those outside the state (Indian tribes), and those not represented by the system have no stake in the Republic. In Calhoun’s time, it also meant that the United States defended slaveholders and their property, putting slaves and even abolitionists outside the polity. (We should remember that Virginia executed John Brown for treason against the Commonwealth, not just for murder.)

"Every citizen" = those in the ingroup only

See also:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/leftist-vs-rightist-moral-circles/

Continuing:

Quote
Calhoun took for granted that the expansion of American civilization meant displacing Indian tribes, and saw no contradiction between this and republicanism.

In fact, Calhoun was the one practicing tribalism. And yes, I agree there is no contradiction between tribalism and republicanism; the latter is indeed one way to efficiently organize the former. If anything, it is absolute monarchism which is more risky for tribalism, because then all it takes is an anti-tribalist monarch to put an end to it. Imagine if John Brown were absolute monarch of America! It is to prevent such a possibility that tribalists feel safer with republican separation of powers across multiple branches of government that function to restrain one another.

Quote
Calhoun’s second main argument is that America’s racially discriminatory policies, including slavery, unify white citizens, protect democracy, and mitigate class differences.

I agree with Calhoun. This is why True Leftists cannot be democrats.

Quote
Calhoun also understood that a common economic and political interest in slavery made a broad commitment to white democracy possible in South Carolina.

This is what actual democracy was intended to be about: political decisions being made by the will of the majority of the demos, which is "white"-only. This maximizes the chances that the decisions are made with "white" tribal interests in mind.

Quote
He also understood a defensive stance in politics is always doomed. Thus, he defended slavery as a “positive good,”

Then why not put "whites" into slavery also? (Of course we know what Calhoun really means: slavery is a positive good for those who are not slaves.)

Quote
Calhoun argued that slavery also promoted social peace and served white workers’ interests.

See?

Quote
In response to the slogan “no one is free unless all are free,” Calhoun might respond that no one has ever been free unless others were subjugated.

Calhoun's notion of freedom is the standard "white" notion of "freedom". They have to be actively oppressing others just to feel neutral.

(If there was only one person in existence, then no one is subjugated, so is that person "unfree"? Perhaps Yahweh created the material world because Yahweh himself thinks like Calhoun and hence felt "unfree" with no one to subjugate?)

Quote
Slavery promoted republicanism by giving poor whites a stake in the system, rich whites a reason to care about poor whites, and both a reason to defend the government.

I agree completely. This is why I hate slavery: it is sustainable evil.

Quote
“Are we to associate with ourselves, as equals, companions and fellow-citizens, the Indian and mixed races of Mexico?” he asked. “I would consider such association as degrading ourselves and fatal to our institution.”

I agree that it would be fatal to Western institutions, which only proves such institutions should never have existed in the first place.

Quote
He [Calhoun] could support taking Oregon, California, and New Mexico on the assumption that they would one day be filled with white people, and thus could be incorporated into the United States, even if they might be free states. But the United States could not conquer and incorporate a nation of nonwhite people without destroying its form of government

Based on its tribalist motivations, this form of government surely deserves to be destroyed.

Quote
Calhoun warned Americans that “[liberty] is a reward to be earned, not a blessing to be gratuitously lavished on all alike — a reward for the intelligent, the patriotic, the virtuous and deserving — and not a boon to be bestowed on a people too ignorant, degraded and vicious, to be capable either of appreciating or enjoying it.”

In short, Calhoun views slave owners as "the intelligent, the patriotic, the virtuous and deserving", and abolitionists as "ignorant, degraded and vicious".
« Last Edit: July 16, 2022, 11:33:41 pm by 90sRetroFan »