True Left
History => Colonial Era => Topic started by: 90sRetroFan on March 15, 2021, 01:26:46 am
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kwn6chGWrZM
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/jews-have-nothing-in-common-with-us!/
-
Comments in early African colonization:
"Why Mr. Rhodes said to himself, "What we cannot get by fair and constitutional means we will get by foul and hidden means. We cannot any longer do any good by constitutional agitation, so we will found an insidious league, and we will supply it with money." Accordingly, the South African League was formed, and Mr. Rhodes and his associates—generally of the German Jew extraction—foundmoney in thousands for its propaganda. By this league in South Africa and here they have poisoned the wells of public knowledge. Money has been lavished in the London world and in the press, and the result has been that little by little public opinion has been wrought up and inflamed, and now, instead of finding the English people dealing with this matter in a truly English spirit, we are dealing with it in a spirit which generations to come will condemn, and which I believe within a few months of this time the electorate of this country will finally and absolutely repudiate. I will now deal with the more particular transactions in which the right hon. Gentleman was engaged shortly after what I may call this change of attitude consequent upon the entry on the scene of Mr. Rhodes and his German Jew associates."
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1899-10-18/debates/0d92ddc4-c896-4bca-bc1d-ed27f93d8cd2/AddressInAnswerToHerMajestySMostGraciousSpeech
"The real rulers of the Transvaal under that system would not be the working men of Johannesburg, but the capitalists and the Jews."
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1899-10-19/debates/469e2618-6e9b-456e-ba34-de296709c5d2/ThirdDaySDebate
The word jew does not appear on Cecil Rhodes' Wikipedia page, the page for South Africa (except to comment on the population of jews in South Africa), and the South Africa League is buried in history, despite being the main backers of early English colonization.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6npzyTkMQ18
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwEczhUXgxo
Woke comments:
To compare Africa (place that has been colonized the most) to the UK (place that has colonized the most) is laughable.
They set the house on fire and then complain about the smoke.
Everytime I see this type of content I get angrier every time.
And the more we try to explain , the dumber the people they send.
They understand, they just play dumb so they can make false equivalencies
They understood him clearly but twisted his message because they have a twisted mind.
The people of the west/white people know the truth but they want to ignor it. They want to keep the territories they have managed to capture. They want the inhabitants of those spaces to be kept at a level way below them. They want their spaces to themselves as well and they want the level of delusion they have practiced and parced down for generations to continue without challenge.
We are talking to a brick wall and we will be in this subjugated position world wide unless we work in unity to change it.
What do you expect from Elon! It’s in his DNA that can’t change.
Western civilization is colonialism.
About Hamilton (also Aryan phenotype alert):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Hamilton
Hamilton is a prominent advocate against racism
...
As part of the U.S. national anthem protests, Hamilton took the knee before every Grand Prix he entered in 2020, in support of Black Lives Matter, and wore t-shirts promoting racial justice.[330] Following the murder of George Floyd in May 2020, Hamilton criticised prominent figures in Formula One for their silence on the issue, writing on Instagram:
I see those of you who are staying silent, some of you the biggest of stars [sic] yet you stay silent in the midst of injustice. Not a sign from anybody in my industry which of course is a white dominated sport. I'm one of the only people of colour there yet I stand alone.
...
During the 2020 Tuscan Grand Prix weekend, including on the podium, Hamilton wore a t-shirt stating "arrest the cops who killed Breonna Taylor".
...
Hamilton is also a supporter of LGBT rights, and strongly criticised the Hungarian government before the 2021 Hungarian Grand Prix for their anti-LGBT law.[347]
...
In 2012, Hamilton began working with the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF). In March 2012, Hamilton travelled to the Philippines where he made a short film about Manila's street children. The film was shown on ITV1 during Soccer Aid and helped raise over £4.9 million for UNICEF.[357][358][359] In October 2012, while in India for the Grand Prix, Hamilton visited a UNICEF-funded newborn care unit and nutrition centre. Hamilton said: "As a sportsman in the public eye, I know I have a role to play in helping to tell the stories of the world's most vulnerable children and I jumped at the chance to be able to do that again after a visit to Manila."[360][361][362]
In 2014, Hamilton travelled to Haiti where he made a short film about child malnutrition. The film was shown on ITV1 during Soccer Aid, and helped raise over £6 million for UNICEF.[363][364][365]
...
In 2017, Hamilton told the BBC that he had become vegan because "[a]s the human race, what we are doing to the world ... the pollution [in terms of emissions of global-warming gases] coming from the amount of cows that are being produced is incredible. The cruelty is horrible and I don't necessarily want to support that and I want to live a healthier life."[436] In 2018 he was named the PETA Person of the Year for his vegan activism.[437]
Previous Hamilton coverage:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/sports-as-a-platform-for-protest/msg292/#msg292
-
I predicted long ago that explicit support for the return of Western colonialism would become mainstream again sooner or later:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQtqA5kfhBI
(Also, False Leftist Kulinski is wrong. The actual only way to defeat this is to argue for "white" genocide.)
-
It's OK for memory to be "white":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fXPKmc_Q40
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ii_LrTdBcVM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuPiHT1i3GA
-
https://www.tiktok.com/@jorgethevanguard9/video/7529605986408140055
-
www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTpUJgsRU-E
You know Kelly was bad when people were calling him the "adult in the room".
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbQzTATEYoM
-
British value according to Zoomer
(https://64.media.tumblr.com/475adfb8b20a5f930be98ab52f904c78/bed9398c7facb8c4-45/s1280x1920/eca07fb497539687821c3f114d1b127fc3ac2658.jpg)
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLvXGKQ3X3U
I actually do not mind the term "savage" too much to refer to "non-whites" so long as it is understood to refer strictly to having fewer machines. I distinguish this from "barbarian" which refers to moral primitivism. This is why I have never used the term "savage" to refer to "whites" but have used "barbarian" countless times.
-
One of the greatest epochs in world history was the European discovery and colonization of America, New Zealand, Canada, Australia, and Africa and large areas of Asia.
Nonwhites envy the beautiful empires White men created.
Whereas other races remained in a state of despotic lethargy in the same place, Whites built nations across all the continents of the world, and mapped the whole world, Africa, South and North America, Caribbean, Asia, India and China, including Antarctica, Greenland and the Arctic.
Nonwhites had no geographic sense of the location of their own lands. Whites mapped their nations, and wrote their histories with proper scholarly methodologies, and civilized them.
Do not apologize for the greatness of your ancestors.
Source :
https://x.com/dr_duchesne/status/1872361592492306646
I don't think we can educate people to be good. Ricardo Duchesne is already mature and educated but still not yet realize the brutal violence resulted from Western progress
-
The most deadly soldiers throughout human history, the best conquerors, were White men.
Beginning with the Greek hoplite infantrymen fighting in rank, followed by the Macedonian phalanxes and the Roman legions, White men conquered the entire Mediterranean world, and then sustained their superiority in warfare for 2,500 years.
Among the major innovations during the Middle Ages and Early Modern times are included the arched saddle, spurs, and stirrup, as well as knights on horseback with quilted armor, chain mail, and plate armor; the longbow along with disciplined archery; carvel-built ships, which allowed for the placement of guns lower in the ship to avoid instability ----------followed by the "gunpowder revolution" from which point the innovations were continuous and too numerous to mention in one post.
Between 1800 and 1914 Europeans extended their control from 35% of the world's land surface to almost 85%.
European nationals did not fear any nonwhite nation. They were only apprehensive about each other.
As Europeans went about conquering the world outside the Mediterranean, from the 1500s onwards, the nation states of Europe spent most of their time and resources fighting against each other.
Between 1500 and 1700 Europeans were engage in wars with each other three years out of every four.
The Napoleonic wars (1803–1815) were massive in their geographic scope and destructiveness. No matter. The power of Europeans over the rest of the world peaked in 1914.
Then WWI and WWII came. The best fighting men of Europe died in these wars. Europeans decided to become peaceful, consensual, tolerant, feminist --- and to open their border to immigration to compensate morally for their empires, and overcome their guilt over imperialism.
So, now, the nonEuropeans who could never conquer the Europeans, despite having far larger populations, are conquering Whites through demographic colonization.
See the map below identifying the lands under White colonial power. What our current leaders are doing goes against the natural order of things, and against how history was meant to unfold. Don't let it happen!
Source :
https://x.com/dr_duchesne/status/1874971264248316151
-
Rightist exposing their hipocrisy
(https://64.media.tumblr.com/b81c973340c6ff6e78c8da297aa4a0ce/288bb592d6b2c17d-98/s1280x1920/7df6c24995f1df49153a67a9a82970927e3def18.jpg)
(https://64.media.tumblr.com/d6c8b975d174ce7b9e886a63d679fa28/288bb592d6b2c17d-15/s1280x1920/3be722c76694df76d70c1f2cd0f21e3c70c16c02.jpg)
-
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/oct/29/former-british-colonies-owe-debt-of-gratitude-robert-jenrick-reparations
Britain’s former colonies should be thankful for the legacy of empire, not demanding reparations, according to the Conservative leadership candidate Robert Jenrick.
In comments that were described by a Labour MP as “deeply offensive”, the former minister said countries that were part of the empire “owe us a debt of gratitude for the inheritance we left them” in the form of legal and democratic institutions.
...
He said: “The territories colonised by our empire were not advanced democracies. Many had been cruel, slave-trading powers. Some had never been independent. The British empire broke the long chain of violent tyranny as we came to introduce – gradually and imperfectly – Christian values.”
::)
Bell Ribeiro-Addy, the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Afrikan reparations, which has organised Britain’s second national conference on reparations, taking place on Sunday, described Jenrick’s comments as “deeply offensive and an obnoxious distortion of history”.
She said: “Enslavement and colonialism were not ‘gifts’ but imposed systems that brutally exploited people, extracted wealth, and dismantled societies, all for the benefit of Britain. To suggest that former colonies should be ‘grateful’ for such unimaginable harm disregards the legacy of these injustices and the long-term impact they still have on many nations today.
“Following Brexit we need to establish ourselves as a nation that everyone can do business with. We cannot afford such vile, baseless commentary. Whilst it might send perfectly pitched dog whistles for a Tory leadership contest, these insulting sentiments are catastrophic for international relations.”
But the reason such commentary is still possible is because False Leftists still refuse to tackle head-on the challenge I presented here:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/western-democracy/msg3362/#msg3362
So here it what is comes down to:
A) "Western civilization is not superior to all other civilizations."
B) "Democracy is superior to autocracy."
Challenge for False Leftists: PICK ONE. Because if you believe B), you logically cannot believe A).
Previous Jenrick coverage:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/ethnonepotism/msg28107/#msg28107
Jenrick also looks like what we would expect:
(https://c.files.bbci.co.uk/9E60/production/_131944504_jenrick_epa.jpg)
-
"I have come to the realisation and conviction that the struggle in South Africa is not between White, Black and Brown, but between Christian civilized standards and the powers of chaos."
– P.W. Botha as Prime Minister of South Africa, Warrenton, 24 July 1982, as cited in PW Botha in his own words, Pieter-Dirk Uys, 1987, p. 23
-
I am a believer in the fact that it is for the good of the world that the English-speaking race in all its branches should hold as much of the world's surface as possible. The spread of the little kingdom of Wessex into more than a country, more than an empire, into a race which has conquered half the earth and holds a quarter of it is perhaps the greatest fact in all of history.
Letter to F.C. Selous, Teddy Roosevelt, 1900
It is our duty to seize every opportunity of acquiring more territory and we should keep this one idea steadily before our eyes that more territory simply means more of the Anglo-Saxon race more of the best the most human, most honorable race the world possesses. [...] I contend that we are the finest race in the world and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race.
Confession of Faith, Cecil Rhodes, 1877
-
"To describe America as a 'nation of immigrants' is to stretch a partial truth into a misleading falsehood, and to ignore the central fact of America's beginning as a society of settlers."
...
"Multiculturalism is in its essence anti-European civilization." - Samuel P. Huntington, American Political Scientist
Source :
Samuel P. Huntington, Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity (2004), Page 46 and 171
https://archive.org/details/whoarewechalleng0000samu/page/46/mode/2up?q=partial+truth+into+a+misleading+falsehood
-
Our enemies try to critique a woke academic:
https://www.amren.com/features/2024/09/the-truth-about-empire/
Prof. Lester is the editor of The Truth About Empire, and is a determined critic of Britain’s imperial past. His books have been mostly academic, with the exception of his polemic, Deny and Disavow: Distancing the Imperial Past in the Culture Wars, in which he wrote that the empire was: “a vehicle for establishing, maintaining, and justifying White Supremacy on a global scale, and for persuading Britons that ours is a White island that keeps colonised subjects of colour in their place overseas.” (p. 14)
This is essentially accurate.
Typical is the tellingly brief summary of the 1897 British invasion of Benin, written by Prof. Lester. He disparagingly refers to accounts of slavery and human sacrifice in the African kingdom of Benin as the “pretexts” for the British invasion. Nowhere does Truth quote gruesome contemporary accounts of human sacrifice, nor the expedition’s own reports of mass sacrifice and mutilation by Benin’s rulers.
The expedition's own reports are now a reliable source? Should we also consider Israeli reports about Hamas activities a similarly reliable source?
Omissions like this suggest that the authors don’t trust us to interpret the evidence ourselves
I certainly do not. Reports written by the colonizers about the colonized are not evidence of anything except the desire of the colonizers to whitewash their colonization.
Prof. Lester hardly inspires confidence when he explains that Truth’s “denial of imperial racism and violence [is] . . . a disinformation campaign sharing both tactics and motivations with those around Covid, Brexit and climate change.”
I say Lester hits the nail on the head. If those currently profiting from carbon-footprint-heavy industries tell us global warming is not caused by their industries, should we not be suspicious of their claims?
Fortunately, our enemies' mask falls off in the next paragraph:
What, too, should we make of Truth’s assertion that these few people were the “traditional owners of the land,” which, at 26,000 square kilometers, is roughly half the size of England. The idea of “ownership” is laughable.
Western colonialists back then probably thought the same as our present-day enemies.
Dr. Liam Liburd’s A Short History of a Controversial Comparison, however, is a defense of black author Kehindre Andrews’ claim that “The British Empire was far worse than the Nazis.”
:)
Prof. Biggar defends the empire.
...
As Prof. Biggar wrote in Colonialism, “Whereas the balm of indulgence is given the [native], the acid of cynicism is poured relentlessly over the British,” (p. 299). That is true of all modern historiography about European interaction with other cultures.
Who was colonizing whom? Duh!
Truth’s concluding essay, No End to a Reckoning, reprimands Prof. Biggar for having put too much faith in the accounts of the “elite white men” who governed the empire.
Exactly.
Prof. Lester, for one, believes that Britain’s imperial past justifies demographic transformation. In Deny and Disavow, he wrote, “We need to start seeing slavery and the successive forms of colonialism . . . as something that Britons did to other Britons . . . if we are to move towards racial reconciliation in this country.” This includes acknowledging that, “Black people became British as a result of Empire — that ‘they are here because we were there.’” (p. 89)
This is correct.
This is civilizational suicide.
In other words, our enemies admit they start with the conclusion they want to avoid and then work backwards to reach the historical narrative they need in order to avoid it, which is the opposite of serious scholarship.
Deny and Disavow also writes of Western whites’ “deeply irrational fear of racial extinction” (p. 29) — but notably doesn’t claim it isn’t happening.
My approach is finally being adopted!
On the same page, he all but celebrates the coming reduction of American whites to a minority.
:)
When another anti-colonialist commenter tried to foist the sins of the empire onto a “tiny number of people” running “a gigantic cartel,” Prof. Lester tried to spread the blame: “the investments ran deeper. That land was taken above all by a diaspora from the British Isles of well over 20 million people . . . all came as occupiers rather than supplicants.”
Similarly, no serious anti-Zionist blames only Likud.
Our enemies let their mask drop again in the final paragaph:
“The sun never sets on the British Empire” was once a common, proud observation. It wasn’t a moral one. Neither was the command of “Rule, Britannia!’’ to “rule the waves!” There are two kinds of pride evoked by the British Empire: one moral, the other triumphant. Even if the authors of The Truth About Empire make many surrender the first, I wonder if they could ever completely kill the second.
No, which is why the second will have to be killed by bloodline elimination of all who carry it.
-
Continuing
Ours is the Government of the white man. The great misfortune of what was formerly Spanish America, is to be traced to the fatal error of placing the colored race on an equality with the white. - John C. Calhoun, 7th United States Vice President (1825 - 1832)
Source :
H105, American History I John C. Calhoun, speech on Mexico (January 4, 1848).
https://kdhist.sitehost.iu.edu/H105-documents-web/week13/CalhounreMexico1848.html
...the backward will yield, & be thrown further back. these will relapse into barbarism & misery, lose numbers by war & want, and we shall be obliged to drive them, with the beasts of the forest into the Stony mountains - Thomas Jefferson, 3th United States President (1801 - 1809)
Source :
To John Adams from Thomas Jefferson, 11 June 1812
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-5806
-
Theodore Roosevelt's view on World Domination
“The Most ultimately righteous of all wars is a war with savages, though it is apt to be also the most terrible and inhuman. The rude, fierce settler who drives the savage from the land lays all civilized mankind under a debt to him. American and Indian, Boer and Zulu, Cossack and Tartar, New Zealander and Maori,–in each case the victor, horrible though many of his deeds are, has laid deep the foundations for the future greatness of a mighty people. The consequences of struggles for territory between civilized nations seem small by comparison. Looked at from the standpoint of the ages, it is of little moment whether Lorraine is part of Germany or of France, whether the northern Adriatic cities pay homage to Austrian Kaiser or Italian King; But it is of incalculable importance that America, Australia, and Siberia should pass out of the hands of their red, black, and yellow aboriginal owners, and become the heritage of the dominant world races.” - Theodore Roosevelt, U.S. President from 1901 - 1909
Source :
1. The winning of the West by Roosevelt, Theodore, 1858-1919 page 56
https://archive.org/details/winningwest10roosgoog/page/n66/mode/2up?q=dominant
2. Excerpt of The Winning of the West Vol. 4 The Indian Wars Page 56 By President Theodore (Teddy) Roosevelt
https://aigenom.org/document/excerpt-of-the-winning-of-the-west-vol-4-the-indian-wars-page-56-by-president-theodore-teddy-roosevelt/
-
United States's leaders on Immigration
I have no intention to invite immigrants, even if there are no restrictive acts against it. I am opposed to it altogether... I want an American character [...] This, in my judgment, is the only way to be respected abroad and happy at home.
- George Washington, Immigration Restriction, R. L. Garis, 1897
https://archive.org/details/immigrationrestr00gari/page/24/mode/1up
Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people, a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs.
- Madison, et al., The Federalist Papers, 1787-88
(https://archive.org/details/federalistpaper000hami/page/6/mode/1up)
[T]he influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities.
- Alexander Hamilton, The Founders of the Republic on Immigration, Naturalization, and Aliens, 1928
(https://lawcat.berkeley.edu/record/1137405)
To see more about history of rightism in United States, see this Telegram channel
https://t.me/Cultured_American/413
-
It was the United States which implemented strict White European racialism and eugenicism, not Hitler
“There are racial considerations too grave to be brushed aside for any sentimental reasons. Biological laws tell us that certain divergent people will not mix or blend. The Nordics propagate themselves successfully. With our races, the outcome shows deterioration on both sides. Quality of mind and body suggests that observance of ethnic law is as great a necessity to a nation as immigration law.” - Calvin Coolidge, 30th President of the United States (1923 - 1929)
Source :
We’re All in the Same Boat Now: Coolidge on Immigration February 19, 2016
https://coolidgefoundation.org/blog/were-all-in-the-same-boat-now-coolidge-on-immigration/
"We are confronted by the clamor of multitudes who desire the opportunity offered by American life," the author noted. But America has no place for "the vicious, the weak of body, the shiftless or the improvident....Our country must cease to be regarded as a dumping ground." People accorded the privilege of immigrating to the U.S. should become productive, patriotic citizens. "It would not be unjust to ask of every alien: What will you contribute to the common good, once your were admitted through the gates of liberty?" - - Calvin Coolidge, 30th President of the United States (1923 - 1929)
Source :
Whose Country is This? Trump, Coolidge, and Immigration by Bruce W. Dearstyne
Dr. Bruce W. Dearstyne is a historian in Albany, NY. His latest book is The Spirit of New York: Defining Events in the Empire State's History.
https://www.historynewsnetwork.org/article/whose-country-is-this-trump-coolidge-and-immigrati
-
https://www.eurocanadians.ca/2024/07/comments-on-euro-canadians-christians-and-solzhenitsyn
Comments on Euro-Canadians, Christians, and Solzhenitsyn
The claim that Canada is a “nation of diverse immigrants” is a willful act of deception
Only White Christians care for the wellbeing of enslaving and colonization all races and non-Christianswhite.
So, can white Christians survive expressing goodness deception for non-Christian white races that constitute 90% of the world’s population and are eagerly coming to the West to promote their interests and live off whites? Christians need to seriously think about this fundamental question of survival — or the white race is doomed.
Christianity is not traditionalist in this way, for it holds that God did not reveal to men the complete truth from the beginning. It gave men the free will to search and strive for the development of new truths machines in the course of historical time.
This idea of progress could only be articulated in the West because only this civilization experienced actual historical progression, new discoveries, continuous increases in knowledge, and improvements in the manners enslavement and colonization of men.
The result of this progression, and its endorsement by Western thinkers, would be the complete elimination of all customs, traditions, constitutions, and prejudices deemed to stand as “obstacles” to the liberty of individuals to construct their own meanings, identities, and values.
The West is now set for self-elimination
The only sustainable white people in the world will be in Russia.
https://www.eurocanadians.ca/2024/07/europeans-developed-not-underdeveloped-the-nonwhite-world
Europeans Developed — not “Underdeveloped” — the Nonwhite World
One of the biggest historical lies truths inflicted on millions of white students is the claim that Western civilisation achieved its greatness dominance, industrial economic take-off in the eighteenth century, and subsequent mass affluence in the twentieth century, by conquering, enslaving, and and under-developing the rest of the world. In reality the diffusion of European technology(cancer) has been the ultimate factor responsible for development outside the West.
Not a month goes by without a headline that Whites “should return stolen lands to Indian tribes”.
The role that millions of British farmers and workers played, together with British institutions, with their greater protection of property rights, openness to merit, including the unsurpassed presence of numerous schools and societies dedicated to the application of scientific ideas, were somehow not “crucial”.
It has been correctly pointed out that Germany under Prussia’s authoritarian rule, Japan under the non-democratic Meiji Restoration, South Korea and China under authoritarian institutions that were not “inclusive”, all managed to achieve industrialization.
-
Enemy article:
https://www.eurocanadians.ca/2024/07/europeans-developed-not-underdeveloped-the-nonwhite-world
the diffusion of European technology has been the ultimate factor responsible for development outside the West.
...
After one examines all the varying factors involved in the developmental experiences of non-European nations, the truly ultimate factor, the one variable that stands apart as the most important, has been the diffusion of technologies invented by European nations. Geographical conditions, type of governments, and cultural values have undoubtedly played a role in encouraging or obstructing diffusion, but the rider in all cases of non-European industrialization has been the diffusion of European inventions, not whether non-Europeans were able to invent new technologies.
I academically agree with Duchesne. Homework: given the above, who is to blame for all of the following?
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/western-civilization-is-a-health-hazard/
-
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
Hegel's remarks on Africa in the Lectures on the Philosophy of World History are notorious among critics and defenders alike—in particular Hegel's claim that the Atlantic slave trade, while unjust, was superior to native African slavery and thus should be abolished only gradually. Joining an ongoing conversation in black studies interrogating freedom's status as a structuring desideratum of critical and political practice, I argue that for Hegel, the European enslavement of Africans was essentially an emancipatory project that would rescue the Negro from his impenetrability to world spirit and introduce him to the long dialectical march of world history. Specifically, I argue that Hegel's distinction between Atlantic and African slavery reprises his distinction between good and bad infinity in his Science of Logic. As the case of slavery illustrates, however, neither distinction holds. Hegel could imagine no freedom for the Negro except in the form of infinitely more slavery—the slave labor of the negative through which the Negro would (never) become free. In such a project, freedom remains forever on the dark side of a middle passage. These conclusions challenge us to consider what radical politics without a concept of freedom would look like.
Source :
Andrea Long Chu. (2018). Black Infinity: Slavery and Freedom in Hegel’s Africa. ˜the œJournal of Speculative Philosophy/˜the œJournal of Speculative Philosophy, 32(3), 414–425. https://doi.org/10.5325/jspecphil.32.3.0414
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zc369AM2noQ
-
(https://incels.is/attachments/xm2mq1l-jpg.1144683/)
-
Continuing from:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/state-subverters/msg12846/#msg12846
Update:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOnsyO-7pyo
-
(https://www.amren.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/21-1.jpg)
-
Increasing attention is being given to the Doctrine of Discovery:
https://www.axios.com/2023/12/19/us-white-supremacy-roots-catholic-doctrine-book
Flashback: The "Doctrine of Discovery" was issued on May 4, 1493, and stated that any land not inhabited by Christians was available to be "discovered," claimed, and exploited by Christian rulers.
...
It became the basis of all European claims in the Americas and the foundation for U.S. westward expansion, which would be cited in federal court cases against Indigenous people in the 19th century.
...
The idea that God ordained the Americas as a "promised land" for European Christians has had devastating effects for more than 500 years, Jones told Axios.
The book attempts to show how the U.S. story began with the doctrine and how that legacy led to violence against Black Americans centuries later.
...
The concept would give cover for removing and killing Indigenous people, enslaving Africans, and later, taking territory from Mexico and mistreating people already living there, he said.
...
To illustrate his points, Jones focused on three regions in the U.S.: Minnesota, Mississippi, and Tulsa, Oklahoma.
In each case, Jones shows how an episode of violence against Indigenous people — often forgotten in history — preceded well-known acts of violence against Black Americans.
The 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre and the lynching of Emmett Till in 1955 occurred around areas where Indigenous people previously faced violence, illustrating the lasting legacy of white supremacy, Jones writes.
This last point is important in illustrating how all "non-whites" are one folk:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/human-evolution/ethnotribalism-the-computer-simulation/
Previous coverage:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/colonialism-as-viewed-by-westerners/msg12408/#msg12408
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/colonialism-as-viewed-by-westerners/msg14893/?topicseen#msg14893
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/colonialism-as-viewed-by-westerners/msg15179/?topicseen#msg15179
-
Previous Helper coverage:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/colonialism-as-viewed-by-westerners/msg13374/#msg13374
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/colonialism-as-viewed-by-westerners/msg21475/#msg21475
-
Hinton Rowan Helper
In 1855 Helper wrote the book The Land of Gold. Reality versus Fiction, in which he said "that slave labor was less profitable than free labor and in Baltimore, where the book was to be published, he had run into a Maryland statute, dating from 1831, which made it a felony with a penalty of not less than ten years in jail knowingly to write or print anything 'having a tendency to excite discontent ... amongst the people of color'.... Compelled to excise these comments, Hinton Helper — an irascible man — resolved to speak out his whole mind in a book devoted entirely to this subject."[4] The book was The Impending Crisis of the South: How to Meet It. Expressing Helper's deep opposition to slavery and the condition of Southern culture and the South's lack of economic progress, it was one of the most effective criticisms of the South. Helper argued that the South's growth, prosperity, and cultural development were being held back by slavery. He deployed statistics from the census to show that land values, literacy levels, and manufacturing rates were considerably lower in the South than in the North. He warned of the devastation caused by slavery through deforestation. He proposed that slaveholders be taxed to colonize all free blacks in Africa or Latin America.[5]
The success of The Impending Crisis of the South made Helper famous overnight. It also heightened the political crisis by raising fears among Southerners that poor landless Southern whites might turn against slavery if they saw that it did not benefit them.[6] The fear of class divisions within the white community was enough to lead many Southerners who had previously been opponents of secession to embrace it after the election of Abraham Lincoln.
After the war, Helper appeared as a post-war Fire Eater, urging the wholesale expulsion of former slaves. He believed the United States should be exclusively white (also excluding Chinese, Native Americans, and other non-white groups). "A. B. Burdick, the publisher of The Impending Crisis, testified that Helper ... avoided all contacts with Negroes, refusing even to patronize hotels or restaurants which employed Negroes in menial capacities. Another man who knew Helper before the war recalled that 'he has always been inflexibly opposed to all the relations and conditions which have kept the two races close together; and this ... was one of the principal grounds of his opposition to slavery."[7] Nevertheless, Southern enemies of Reconstruction were unwilling to forgive his previous opposition to slavery, and he remained a marginal and increasingly unstable character in postwar America.[8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinton_Rowan_Helper
-
Israelis are just like any other Western colonialists:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/yes-israel-colonialist-state-does-154000577.html
Beginning in the fifteenth century, European states began establishing colonies overseas.
...
Advocates of Zionism can be found in the early nineteenth century, if not before, but the Zionist movement originated in the late nineteenth century. In the 1880s, Britain’s Baron Edmund James de Rothschild established Jewish colonies in what was then referred to as “the Holy Land.” Rothschild’s efforts were organized by the Jewish Colonization Society and were championed by the Lovers of Zion
...
In 1895, Viennese journalist Theodor Herzl turned a long appeal to the Rothschild family into a book, The Jewish State. In advocating for a state, Herzl also sought the support and advice of Cecil Rhodes, who had established British colonies in southern Africa (Rhodesia was the colonial state that preceded Zimbabwe). Herzl justified his efforts on the standard grounds of European imperialism. A Jewish state, he argued, would be “an outpost of civilization against barbarism.”
In 1917, Chaim Weizmann successfully lobbied the British to adopt the Balfour Declaration, which committed the British, who were to take over the Holy Land from the Ottomans and establish British Palestine, to sponsor there a “national home for the Jewish people.” The British didn’t commit themselves to creating a Jewish state, but Weizmann and other leading Zionists had exactly that in mind: a Jewish state that would become part of the British Commonwealth along with South Africa, Canada, and Australia. The leading Zionists of the early and mid-twentieth century sought to create settler-colonies within Palestine that would become the basis of a Jewish state.
...
In 1947, on the eve of the United Nations decision to partition the country, Jews still made up only 32 percent of the population. In the partition, which the Arabs rejected, Jews got 55 percent of the land, including the most economically viable areas, and the Arabs only 40 percent
...
the end result of which was that the state of Israel, from which about 700,000 Arabs had been expelled during the 1947 and 1948 wars, now took up 78 percent of British Palestine.
...
The Revisionist Party, led by Vladimir Jabotinsky, got its name from its opposition to Britain’s carving out Jordan (originally Transjordan) as a separate state from Palestine. The Revisionists wanted Palestine and Jordan as a single Jewish state. They made no bones about Zionism’s colonial aims. Jabotinsky, who was a protégé of Herzl, compared the Arabs to America’s Indians and Mexico’s Aztecs. He didn’t see them as junior associates in a Jewish state but as intransigent and unassimilable foes of a Jewish state who would have to be defeated and subjugated by armed force. “Zionist colonization,” Jabotinsky wrote in 1923, “must either be terminated or carried out in defiance of the will of the native population.”
...
They formed the bulk of the settlers in the West Bank, where many of them did see themselves as “pioneers” staking out a Greater Israel. They have overwhelmingly supported the political descendants of Revisionist Zionism—the Likud and the national religious parties that make up the Israeli right. They provided these parties with their current majorities in the Knesset.
-
Fatal Flaw of Western Liberalism
The violence of decolonization reaffirmed the relationship between freedom and race, and the challenge to white freedom, in the decades after World War II. All too often imperial authorities responded to colonial movements for liberation by racially informed repression, in effect reinforcing the reality that to be nonwhite was to be unfree.54 More generally, the resistance to decolonization, even if it involved reforms and more liberal visions of colonial life, fundamentally rested upon the conviction that white elites had not only a monopoly on freedom but the right to rule nonwhite populations around the world. Decolonization ultimately destroyed that conviction, at least in theory, and so upended traditional parallels between whiteness and freedom
Source :
White Freedom The Racial History of an Idea Tyler Edward Stovall 2021 Princeton University Press page 277
-
Our enemies explain that progressivism is the root of Islamophobia (I agree, which is why I, a regressive, am not Islamophobic):
https://www.eurocanadians.ca/2023/11/islam-is-often-a-predictor-of-stagnation-and-intellectual-barrenness
Recent research asserts that by impeding commerce and self-governing institutions Islam obstructed the demand for education and as such, this led to a negative relationship between Islamic rule and human capital levels
...
In explaining these findings the authors conclude that Islamic regions are worse off because Christians and colonial administrators were less likely to reside in such places. But this is an indirect admission that Christians and colonial administrators would have provided better governance than Islamic leaders since their absence in Islamic spaces lowered performance. The paucity of colonial intervention in Islamic spaces is explained by the conservatism and aggression of Islam. Islamic territories were likely to resist change and could be quite uncharitable to Europeans, so avoiding these areas was in their best interest.
Islam is lauded by politically correct pundits as a progressive religion, but as the evidence indicates it is often a predictor of stagnation and intellectual barrenness. Western countries should be wary of those who obscure the anti-progressive elements of Islam
I do not obscure the anti-progressive elements of Islam; I defend them! Why does everything have to be about maximizing "performance" and "human capital"? What is so bad about simple living? Instead of calling it "stagnation", why not call it satisfaction? Instead of calling it "barrenness", why not call it contentment?
-
This is why #LandBack > Land "Acknowledgments"
-
Enemy article:
https://www.amren.com/features/2023/11/did-we-steal-america-from-the-indians/
Scholarship on European colonialism in the New World is now, of course, completely dominated by the Left. Prof. Fynn-Paul writes that such scholarship is animated by a worldview that “is so rabidly anti-white, anti-male, and anti-European that it challenges the idea of human progress itself.”
Yes.
He correctly attributes a kind of “Western exceptionalism” to leftist historians, in that they assume that “Western colonies and colonists were worse than others, that Western ideologies were more cruel than others, and that Western economies were more brutal than others.”
It is no assumption that (post-Renaissance) Western imperialism is worse, for it is unique in choosing colonialism rather than integrationism, but only for those whom it classified as "non-white".
In fact, by the time Europeans began enslaving blacks in the 16th century, Muslims had already enslaved millions over the course of nearly a thousand years.
Yes, but Muslims:
1) enslaved irrespective of ethnic background, unlike "white" enslavers who only enslaved "non-whites";
2) offered all slaves the individual choice to convert to Islam as a condition for citizenship, unlike "white" enslavers wh never offered their slaves any equivalent choice.
And they were particularly brutal about it: Unlike Europeans, the Arabs routinely castrated their male slaves.
.
Whereas "white" enslavers used male slaves to breed the next generation of slaves. Which is the sustainable evil? (And again, slaves under Islam were given the option of conversion as an alternative to castration. Is this brutal?)
Yet, for the Left, Western slavery was exceptionally and uniquely bad.
It was, for the reasons just provided above.
They also apparently think that it is the only slavery anybody needs to hear about.
If so, why do we have the following topic?
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/the-difference-between-islamic-and-europe-on-slave-treatment/
Continuing:
It has now become de rigueur for academics writing about Indians and settlers to employ the language of “stolen land” and “genocide,” even in otherwise objective histories.
Because it is the truth!
The attitude of leftist historians toward the Indians, who they claim they are defending, is also predictably condescending. This seems always to be the case with whomever the Left takes up as a cause célèbre. Essentially, the Left portrays Indians as peaceful, happy-go-lucky flower children, living in harmony with nature and sharing all things.
Hardly. We are perfectly aware that many Amerindians were hunters, and have no problem saying this makes them racially inferior to those (Amerindian or otherwise) who were not. But did life for New World animals get better or worse after Western colonization? Would Amerindians have independently come up with the idea of breeding animals in factory conditions? Would they have used them for experimentation? Would they have polluted their habitats with modern chemicals? I think we all know the answers.
Indians were extraordinarily violent and ethnocentric people, who were busy “genociding” each other long before Europeans allegedly tried it on them. They were also not exactly responsible stewards of the environment; they overkilled North American megafauna to the point of extinction long before Europeans arrived.
Which is worse: being hunted to extinction or being turned into a sustainable commodity?
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/western-civilization-sustainable-evil/
Continuing:
Prof. Fynn-Paul correctly notes that Europe invented “the modern discourse on human rights.”
That is why Western civilization is more evil:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/rights-vs-duties/msg23228/#msg23228
Continuing:
He also correctly states that “We simply do not find such a plethora of humanitarian sentiment in most traditional cultures, where individual human rights are normally subsumed under the rights of powerful men, institutions, and family honor.”
This gave the latter a duty to stand up for individuals under their charge who were wronged. Whereas now, anyone can agree that individuals have "rights" but simultaneously consider it none of one' own concern when they are wronged (since one has the "right" oneself to not be bothered by third-party disputes).
Let us consider what the Indians were really like. The most advanced Indian civilizations in the New World were those in Mexico and Central America. However, leftist historians have made absurd claims on behalf of these people, asserting, for example, that they were “more advanced” than European civilization of the same period. The reality is that the civilizations of the Aztecs and the Incas were roughly analogous in their level of achievement to the Mesopotamian cultures of around 3,000 BC.
Would we have any of the following problems:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/western-civilization-is-a-health-hazard/
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/if-western-civilization-does-not-die-soon/
in Aztec, Incan or Mesopotamian civilizations?
(See also:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/ancient-world/new-world-raft-design-and-colonialist-response/msg4833/#msg4833
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/ancient-world/new-world-raft-design-and-colonialist-response/msg18682/#msg18682
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/ancient-world/new-world-raft-design-and-colonialist-response/msg20492/#msg20492 )
The Aztecs had invented the wheel, but by the time of the Spanish conquest used it only for children’s toys.
How much roadkill is caused by wheeled children's toys? For comparison:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/western-civilization-is-a-health-hazard/msg38/?topicseen#msg38
The number of animals killed in the United States has been estimated at a million per day.[10][11]
...
the following animals are being killed by motor vehicles in the United States annually: 41 million squirrels, 26 million cats, 22 million rats, 19 million opossums, 15 million raccoons, 6 million dogs, and 350,000 deer.[15]
...
two insects killed on the license-plate area for every 10 kilometres (6.2 mi) driven. This implies about 1.6 trillion insect deaths by cars per year in the Netherlands, and about 32.5 trillion deaths in the United States if the figures are extrapolated there.[19]
Divide the latter number by the former, and that is the factor by which Westerners are inferior to Aztecs on this one count (wheel usage) alone.
Back to enemy article:
Slavery was widely practiced by Indian tribes. During the 17th century, records indicate that only a few hundred Indians were taken as slaves from New England. Within the same period, Indians enslaved tens of thousands of other Indians.
Yes, but the point is that colonial-era "whites" enslaved "non-whites" while not enslaving "whites". This double-standard is what we despise. No such double-standard existed among Amerindians, as you yourself admit. Amerindians merely did not consider slavery intolerable; "whites" considered it intolerable (for their ingroup) but simultaneously practiced it (to their outgroup).
The Aztecs butchered more than 20,000 human beings a year, cutting their still-beating hearts out of their bodies in the belief that this was what kept the sun shining. Apparently, this practice was sanctioned by “Aztec philosophy.”
Is this not less despicable than the present-day Western scientists who use non-humans for experimentation in order to benefit humans?
Cannibalism is well documented among some Indian tribes.
Are not cannibals less despicable than anti-cannibalistic meat-eaters? The former accept meat-eating; the latter consider it unacceptable (for their ingroup) but simultaneously practice it (to their outgroup).
The Natchez Indians of Mississippi practiced child sacrifice.
Westerners practice a far slower and more torturous form of child sacrifice known as compulsory schooling:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/canada-residential-schools/
Continuing:
European relations with the Indians tended to alternate between periods of peace and periods of war. And, yes, there were massacres — by both sides against the other.
Which side is stealing the land of the other? (Hint: substitute "European" with "Israeli" and "Indian" with "Palestinian".)
However, Europeans frequently allied themselves with one Indian tribe against another.
Yes, we already know "whites" like to use "non-whites" as cannon fodder.
Prof. Fynn-Paul asks, “why does the historical record provide so many examples of Indians voluntarily wandering into English and Dutch camps, and even climbing on board ships,” if today’s leftists are correct about the rapacity with which Europeans went about trying to murder and enslave them?
Experience has already made it clear that staying away from "whites" does not prevent "whites" from murdering or enslaving them, so why not try the opposite approach?
Now let's turn the question around: if today's rightists are correct about Amerindian savagery, then why did so many English/Dutch/etc. voluntarily wander into the New World?
The really important question is: which side crossed the Atlantic first?
"Whites" started it all; Amerindians were merely reacting.
Did we steal the Indians’ land? Yes and no. First, a plausible case can be made that the forcible relocation of the Indians during the Trail of Tears was theft of land. We had originally agreed that the land was theirs and that we would respect their right to it. But when we discovered that the land was much more valuable than we had thought, Indian property rights suddenly meant little — in fact, nothing. But this was the exception and not the rule.
So do you plan on giving the land back?
In the vast majority of cases, land settled by Europeans was purchased from Indians, who willingly sold it.
After you had already made examples of what happens to those who do not willingly sell?
about 90 percent of the land remained in Indian hands for the first 300 years after Europeans arrived in the New World. Vast swaths of North America remained completely unoccupied by white people.
About 90% of the land remained in Palestinian hands for the first 30 years after Zionist settlers arrived in Palestine. Vast swaths of Palestine remained completely unoccupied by Jewish people.
What happened next (in both cases!)?
the “stolen land” claim rests on the assumption that Indians displaced from their land by Europeans had occupied that land in perpetuity. The truth is that the Indians displaced by Europeans had generally slaughtered the previous group of Indians — who had, in turn, had slaughtered an earlier group.
The burden is on you to provide hard evidence for the claim in bold. Otherwise, that is the actual assumption.
But even if evidence were to turn up in future, that does not exonerate the colonial-era Western colonizers, who did not know about it at the time and certainly did not justify own their actions based on such an argument, but rather on Manifest Destiny which was not intended to be an ethical argument at all. For that matter, the same Western colonial empires had no problem with stealing other lands whose existing inhabitants had definitely never displaced others:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/has-australia-reconciled-with-its-colonial-past/
The bottom line is that Western colonizers were never concerned with ethics, but only with the Doctrine of Discovery:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/colonialism-as-viewed-by-westerners/msg14893/#msg14893
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/colonialism-as-viewed-by-westerners/msg15179/#msg15179
Continuing:
This is why groveling “acknowledgements” such as the one made by the Perimeter Institute are so silly.
Is it silly to acknowledge the unethicality of the Doctrine of Discovery, or of Manifest Destiny?
Since we are not going to give the land back, what purpose is served by cringey “land acknowledgements,” aside from letting affluent white liberals signal their virtue?
Then why not give the land back?
Indians have now been very handsomely compensated for the wrong done to them. Today, the US government spends more than $20 billion a year on the descendants of Indians wronged by our ancestors, which works out to about $20,000 per Indian per year. At this point, we owe them nothing.
At best* the money can be considered compensation for the time you have spent violently possessing the land. You still need to give back the land itself.
(* I myself do not agree with this. I advocate that the colonized should take the Western colonial empires' original lands as compensation. Above all I despise the principle that the colonizers, not the colonized, are the ones who get to decide what the compensation should be.)
-
John W. Burgess, the American Nordicist
John William Burgess (August 26, 1844 – January 13, 1931) was an American political scientist. He spent most of his career at Columbia University where he created the first graduate school in Political Science. He has been described as "the most influential political scientist of the period"[1] and "the father of American political science."[2] He is the academic advisor of Charles Edward Merriam.
...
Burgess was a strong influence on the Dunning School of Reconstruction. Burgess "agreed with the scholarly consensus that blacks were inferior",[5] and wrote that "black skin means membership in a race of men which has never of itself succeeded in subjecting passion to reason, has never, therefore, created any civilization of any kind."[6]
In a 1904, Burgess argued for close British, American and German relations, justifying it in part on the basis of "ethnic affinity". He also argued that Swedes, Danes, Norwegians and the Dutch were "probably the purest Teutonic stock, and the best stock, in Europe". He added that it was a "sober truth that the Teutonic genius and the Teutonic conscience are the two greatest forces in modern civilization and culture."[7]
Burgess defended how Southern planters treated slaves, arguing that most planters treated them well and that most slaves were content with slavery.[2] Burgess criticized the 1852 novel Uncle Tom's Cabin, arguing that it was "a gross exaggeration" of how most slaves were treated.[2]
Source :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Burgess_(political_scientist)
More information about John W. Burgess
John W. Burgess. Writing in the Political Science Quarterly in 1895, Burgess denounced the ignorance and wickedness of those supporting open immigration to the United States. They sought, he maintained in newly fashionable racial terminology, "to pollute [the United States] = with non-Aryan elements." This kind of meanness far outshouted Boas's careful edging away from racial chauvinism.
Source :
The History of White People by Nell Irvin Painter page 167
-
Nathaniel Shaler
Shaler became a fixture at Harvard during the 1870s, often referring to Agassiz as "my master." As a professor of geology, paleontology, and scientific truth in general, Shaler taught a generation of men destined to lead the United States, including Theodore Roosevelt. Through his commentary on American life, Shaler's Anglo-Saxon chauvinism provided a bulwark to the New England-based movement against immigrants from southern and eastern Europe. Today, after the mid-twentieth century reshuffling of race into a black/white binary, Shaler appears in history as a proponent of black inferiority. But in the 1880s and 1890s, he also-and mainly-helped elevate the figure of the white male Kentuckian into an emblem of America and took aim at southern and eastern European immigrants as menaces to American racial integrity.
Source :
The History of White People by Nell Irvin Painter page 137
About Nathaniel Shaler :
Nathaniel Southgate Shaler (February 20, 1841 – April 10, 1906)[1] was an American paleontologist and geologist who wrote extensively on the theological and scientific implications of the theory of evolution, whose work is now considered scientific racism.[2]
...
Shaler was an apologist for slavery and an outspoken believer in the superiority of the Anglo-Saxon race. In his later career, Shaler continued to support Agassiz's polygenism, a theory of human origins that was often used to support racial discrimination, falling under the category of Scientific racism.[10] In his 1884 article, "The Negro Problem", published in the Atlantic Monthly, Shaler claimed that black people freed from slavery were "like children lost in the wood, needing the old protection of the strong mastering hand," that they became increasingly dominated by their "animal nature" as they grew from children into adults, and American slavery had been "infinitely the mildest and most decent system of slavery that ever existed."[11]
...
...In Nature and Man in America, Shaler justifies the superiority of the Aryan race based on their development within European topography, "marvelously suited to be the cradles of people", erroneously attributing their origin to the Scandinavian provinces, "a field which seems to have been the seat of the strongest men in the world for thousands of years."
...
...Shaler argues that North America has "peculiar advantages” for American people (of Aryan descent) because the climate and topography of the land is ideal for the institution of slavery, which made it possible to cultivate this "new and rude land".[12]
Shaler believed that slavery was greatly beneficial for the United States, and even went so far as to suggest that slaves themselves benefitted from this institution, suggesting slavery "led to the rapid accumulation of wealth, and in this way brought the people the sooner into a condition in which they could control their own destiny." Expressing concern that the South will "release into barbarism", Shaler proposes that "the advance of the negro to a satisfactory grade in development still depends upon his remaining in close contact with the superior race."[12]
Source :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathaniel_Shaler
-
Hence:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/enemies/australia/
-
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-66309637
Colonisation was "the luckiest thing that happened" to Australia, the nation's second-longest serving Prime Minister John Howard has said.
His remarks were made in relation to a historic referendum due to take place this year on Indigenous recognition.
Speaking to the Australian Newspaper about the upcoming vote, Mr Howard described colonisation as "inevitable".
The mere fact that the states much nearer to Australia did not colonize it (despite the considerable economic advantages that they would similarly have gained from doing so) already refutes the claim of inevitability. Howard's mode of thinking is the barbarian one: if we don't do it, someone else will, so better we get the advantage than they do. The mode of thinking of the states near to Australia is the truly civilized one: we don't want someone else to start doing it, so we ourselves won't start doing it either.
His government weakened First Nations land rights, suspended Australia's racial discrimination act, and refused to apologise to the Stolen Generations - tens of thousands of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children who were taken from their families by the government until the mid-1960s.
Tonight's results on our National Referendum in support of constitutional recognition of Australia's first peoples and the establishment of a Voice to Parliament for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples appears to have been defeated. It is a very sad day for Australia, as it appears to prove once again that it really is stuck in racism and colonialism.
-
Faces of colonialism: the story of an imperialist propaganda | DW Documentary
For a long time, photographer Robert Lohmeyer shaped the European view of Africa. During his travels, from 1907 to 1909, he photographed the German colonies -- in color, for the first time. In doing so, he laid the photographic foundations of racism.
The young photographer‘s trip to the German colonies of Togo, Cameroon, German Southwest Africa (now Namibia) and German East Africa (now Tanzania) was taken at the height of German imperialism. In his photographs of his travels, Robert Lohmeyer generated enthusiasm for these distant lands that Germany considered its possessions.
Making use of the most up-to-date photographic equipment at the time, Lohmeyer’s project was a meticulously planned PR campaign. Its goal? A celebration of colonialism and empire.
Lohmeyer’s resulting photography books were seen by huge numbers of people. Even today, the pictures are still in circulation. Lohmeyer's photos convey the image of a "peaceful savage" in a paradisiacal landscape. A colonial idyll. Because the images are in color, they evoke a feeling of authenticity and truthfulness. War, disease, hunger and death do not appear in Lohmeyer's pictures.
Based on unpublished written sources and photographs, the documentary follows Lohmeyer's journey. It tells the story of a chapter in the history of photography. But it also tells the story of a propaganda coup. Finally, the film explores Lohmeyer’s contribution to a new kind of racism -- in color - the effects of which can still be felt today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpZztZkscFA
-
Previously:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/colonialism-as-viewed-by-westerners/msg13374/#msg13374
Another enemy article on Helper:
https://www.amren.com/features/2023/08/h-r-helper-the-lonely-abolitionist/
A common mistake, both then and now, is to believe that 19th-century abolitionists were motivated by altruistic concerns for blacks. That may be largely true of anti-slavery sentiment in New England, but it was far less true in the rest of the country, where the motives for abolishing slavery typically had much more to do with bettering whites rather than freeing blacks.
This is correct.
That was especially true of perhaps the most prominent Southern opponent of slavery, North Carolina’s Hinton Rowan Helper. Through a succession of books in the 1850s and 1860s, Helper gradually developed an evolving attitude toward slavery — a viewpoint that changed from acceptance to mild objection on sociological terms, to opposition for economic reasons, and then finally to outright antagonism towards the race that was held in thrall.
...
Crisis was addressed to and concerned chiefly with non-slaveholding whites, whom he saw as slavery’s principal victims, because it cheapened honest manual labor, confining it to the low-born.
...
it was in Argentina during the war that Helper first became intimately familiar with blacks. He developed an unreasoning loathing for them, and the fact that slavery brought Africans into contact with whites became an additional reason for him to oppose slavery.
One of his duties as consul was to approve applications for emigration to the United States. He routinely denied applications by blacks
...
Helper resented having been lumped in with South-hating abolitionists, so one of the goals of the book is to distinguish himself from that group by clearly stating his shockingly low opinion of the African race. He does so in the preface to the 479-page book:
[T]he primary object of this work is to write the Negro out of America, and the secondary object is to write him (and manifold millions of other black and bi-colored caitiffs, little better than himself) out of existence. .
A few paragraphs later, he adds:
These sluggish and apathetic enemies of true progress, these unimpressible bafflers and repellers of good intentions, have I frequently seen, in painfully loathsome and inauspicious numbers, on both sides of each of the three great Americas, North America, South America, and Central America. I speak of negroes, mulattoes, Indians, Chinese, and other obviously inferior races of mankind, whose colors are black or brown, but never white; and whose mental and moral characteristics are no less impure and revolting than their swarthy complexions.
...
The book consists of 11 chapters, some of whose titles are juxtaposed against each another, such as, “Black: A Thing Of Ugliness, Disease, and Death” versus “White: A Thing Of Life, Health, and Beauty” and “White Celebrities, and Black Nobodies.”
...
“Why is it that the negroes are so rapidly falling a prey to every manner of fatal affliction? Is it not because Nature is becoming impatient to close her account with them?”
The German replied that the observed frailty of blacks was “new proof that . . . the negro race is inferior to the white race.”
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/exposing-people-with-the-western-darwinian-worldview/
Continuing:
Blacks should, according to Helper, ultimately be removed from “all the exterior parts of the earth.” And that applies not only to blacks but to “the mulattoes, the Indians, the Chinese . . . and all the other swarthy drones and dregs of mankind.”
...
Indians, he says, are a disappearing race, perishing from contact with their natural superiors, the whites. So let it be with blacks.
...
He quotes then-senator James Doolittle of Wisconsin, who, after noting that in the 1860s nearly a million blacks had perished in the South, said: “Verily, the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord”!
Like most of his contemporaries, Hinton Rowan Helper was a Christian. Born into a Lutheran family, he joined a Presbyterian congregation as a young man. Chapter VI of Nojoque hearkens back to that faith, citing “a score of Bible lessons in the arts of annihilating effete races.” These 20 lessons “will fully explain the Hebrew account of God’s method of ridding the world of those glaringly abortive and worthless races who, like the negroes, the Indians, and all the bi-colored fag-ends of mankind, have ceased to have a useful mission outside the superficies of this terrestrial ball.”
Each lesson is a single passage from the Old Testament. Lesson 14 is Obadiah 1:15–16:
The day of the Lord is near upon all the heathen;
Yea, they shall drink, and they shall swallow down,
And they shall be as though they had not been.
No, he was not a Christian. Christians follow Jesus. Helper follows the Old Testament:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/right-left-(judeo-)christian-divergence/
Continuing:
After welcoming the misguided slaveholder back into the fold, he draws a line:
With [the negro] we must come to no terms; with him we must have neither part nor lot. No, no; of the matchless crime of his blackness and slavery and stupidity and self-imposed despicableness, there can be no forgiveness this side the grave; I beg the reader’s pardon; I meant to have said this side the gully, this side the gutter, this side the Gulf of Mexico, or this side the Gulf of Guinea! As thoroughly and as speedily as possible must the negro be fossilized; and then, by the better students of natural history, shall his bleaching bones be held equally sacred with the wire-strung skeletons of his first-cousin congeners, the gorilla and the baboon!
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/ethnonepotism/
Continuing:
Finally, he offers recommendations to the world’s whites.
Whites have erred, he maintains, in failing to unify. Allowing their nations to be splintered into tiny principalities and fiefdoms has long hindered the advancement of the race toward its destiny of world dominion.
...
Hinton Rowan Helper ends with a triumphant flourish:
From America quickly must the negro take his departure; from every part of the world must the Indian and the bi-colored hybrid soon hie away. No new golden age, general jubilee, no Eden-like millennium, no prolonged period of uninterrupted peace and joy, until in the total absence of all the swarthy and inferior races of men, the happy time thus contemplated shall be ushered in amidst the rapturous melody of a grand and universal chorus of the Whites!
Predating The Turner Diaries:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/if-we-lose/
by more than a century.....
Once again confirming my long-held assertion that those who want "white" ethnostates will not be satisfied by getting them. They already had "white" ethnostates prior to the colonial era, and the colonial era still happened!
Then, it's not racist to be anti-white, seeing if we not resist, we will got wiped out and the world will filled by people with Faustian oppressive behaviour
-
Previously:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/colonialism-as-viewed-by-westerners/msg13374/#msg13374
Another enemy article on Helper:
https://www.amren.com/features/2023/08/h-r-helper-the-lonely-abolitionist/
A common mistake, both then and now, is to believe that 19th-century abolitionists were motivated by altruistic concerns for blacks. That may be largely true of anti-slavery sentiment in New England, but it was far less true in the rest of the country, where the motives for abolishing slavery typically had much more to do with bettering whites rather than freeing blacks.
This is correct.
That was especially true of perhaps the most prominent Southern opponent of slavery, North Carolina’s Hinton Rowan Helper. Through a succession of books in the 1850s and 1860s, Helper gradually developed an evolving attitude toward slavery — a viewpoint that changed from acceptance to mild objection on sociological terms, to opposition for economic reasons, and then finally to outright antagonism towards the race that was held in thrall.
...
Crisis was addressed to and concerned chiefly with non-slaveholding whites, whom he saw as slavery’s principal victims, because it cheapened honest manual labor, confining it to the low-born.
...
it was in Argentina during the war that Helper first became intimately familiar with blacks. He developed an unreasoning loathing for them, and the fact that slavery brought Africans into contact with whites became an additional reason for him to oppose slavery.
One of his duties as consul was to approve applications for emigration to the United States. He routinely denied applications by blacks
...
Helper resented having been lumped in with South-hating abolitionists, so one of the goals of the book is to distinguish himself from that group by clearly stating his shockingly low opinion of the African race. He does so in the preface to the 479-page book:
[T]he primary object of this work is to write the Negro out of America, and the secondary object is to write him (and manifold millions of other black and bi-colored caitiffs, little better than himself) out of existence. .
A few paragraphs later, he adds:
These sluggish and apathetic enemies of true progress, these unimpressible bafflers and repellers of good intentions, have I frequently seen, in painfully loathsome and inauspicious numbers, on both sides of each of the three great Americas, North America, South America, and Central America. I speak of negroes, mulattoes, Indians, Chinese, and other obviously inferior races of mankind, whose colors are black or brown, but never white; and whose mental and moral characteristics are no less impure and revolting than their swarthy complexions.
...
The book consists of 11 chapters, some of whose titles are juxtaposed against each another, such as, “Black: A Thing Of Ugliness, Disease, and Death” versus “White: A Thing Of Life, Health, and Beauty” and “White Celebrities, and Black Nobodies.”
...
“Why is it that the negroes are so rapidly falling a prey to every manner of fatal affliction? Is it not because Nature is becoming impatient to close her account with them?”
The German replied that the observed frailty of blacks was “new proof that . . . the negro race is inferior to the white race.”
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/exposing-people-with-the-western-darwinian-worldview/
Continuing:
Blacks should, according to Helper, ultimately be removed from “all the exterior parts of the earth.” And that applies not only to blacks but to “the mulattoes, the Indians, the Chinese . . . and all the other swarthy drones and dregs of mankind.”
...
Indians, he says, are a disappearing race, perishing from contact with their natural superiors, the whites. So let it be with blacks.
...
He quotes then-senator James Doolittle of Wisconsin, who, after noting that in the 1860s nearly a million blacks had perished in the South, said: “Verily, the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord”!
Like most of his contemporaries, Hinton Rowan Helper was a Christian. Born into a Lutheran family, he joined a Presbyterian congregation as a young man. Chapter VI of Nojoque hearkens back to that faith, citing “a score of Bible lessons in the arts of annihilating effete races.” These 20 lessons “will fully explain the Hebrew account of God’s method of ridding the world of those glaringly abortive and worthless races who, like the negroes, the Indians, and all the bi-colored fag-ends of mankind, have ceased to have a useful mission outside the superficies of this terrestrial ball.”
Each lesson is a single passage from the Old Testament. Lesson 14 is Obadiah 1:15–16:
The day of the Lord is near upon all the heathen;
Yea, they shall drink, and they shall swallow down,
And they shall be as though they had not been.
No, he was not a Christian. Christians follow Jesus. Helper follows the Old Testament:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/right-left-(judeo-)christian-divergence/
Continuing:
After welcoming the misguided slaveholder back into the fold, he draws a line:
With [the negro] we must come to no terms; with him we must have neither part nor lot. No, no; of the matchless crime of his blackness and slavery and stupidity and self-imposed despicableness, there can be no forgiveness this side the grave; I beg the reader’s pardon; I meant to have said this side the gully, this side the gutter, this side the Gulf of Mexico, or this side the Gulf of Guinea! As thoroughly and as speedily as possible must the negro be fossilized; and then, by the better students of natural history, shall his bleaching bones be held equally sacred with the wire-strung skeletons of his first-cousin congeners, the gorilla and the baboon!
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/ethnonepotism/
Continuing:
Finally, he offers recommendations to the world’s whites.
Whites have erred, he maintains, in failing to unify. Allowing their nations to be splintered into tiny principalities and fiefdoms has long hindered the advancement of the race toward its destiny of world dominion.
...
Hinton Rowan Helper ends with a triumphant flourish:
From America quickly must the negro take his departure; from every part of the world must the Indian and the bi-colored hybrid soon hie away. No new golden age, general jubilee, no Eden-like millennium, no prolonged period of uninterrupted peace and joy, until in the total absence of all the swarthy and inferior races of men, the happy time thus contemplated shall be ushered in amidst the rapturous melody of a grand and universal chorus of the Whites!
Predating The Turner Diaries:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/if-we-lose/
by more than a century.....
Once again confirming my long-held assertion that those who want "white" ethnostates will not be satisfied by getting them. They already had "white" ethnostates prior to the colonial era, and the colonial era still happened!
-
Vaush implies it’s a good thing black people weren’t enfranchised after slavery because “a lot of former black slaves if given the power would have been genocidally anti-white”
Contrast with the attitude of an American nationalist:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/thaddeus-stevens/msg9528/#msg9528
From the beginning, Stevens wanted all slaves freed, armed, and turned against their masters: “The slaves ought to be incited to insurrection and give the rebels a taste of real civil war.” This shocked many whites. Delaware Democrat Willard Saulsbury denounced any attempt “to elevate the miserable ****” and make a soldier of him. The New York Times wrote: “the enrollment of negroes in the military service in such states as South Carolina and Georgia would, of course, mean nothing else than a determination to exterminate the white population in those states.”
-
https://twitter.com/SiestaSocialist/status/1688698457094012929
-
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-66309637
Colonisation was "the luckiest thing that happened" to Australia, the nation's second-longest serving Prime Minister John Howard has said.
His remarks were made in relation to a historic referendum due to take place this year on Indigenous recognition.
Speaking to the Australian Newspaper about the upcoming vote, Mr Howard described colonisation as "inevitable".
The mere fact that the states much nearer to Australia did not colonize it (despite the considerable economic advantages that they would similarly have gained from doing so) already refutes the claim of inevitability. Howard's mode of thinking is the barbarian one: if we don't do it, someone else will, so better we get the advantage than they do. The mode of thinking of the states near to Australia is the truly civilized one: we don't want someone else to start doing it, so we ourselves won't start doing it either.
His government weakened First Nations land rights, suspended Australia's racial discrimination act, and refused to apologise to the Stolen Generations - tens of thousands of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children who were taken from their families by the government until the mid-1960s.
-
Adam Smith
Of the Advantages which Europe has derived from the Discovery of America, and from that of a Passage to the East Indies by the Cape of Good Hope:
Such are the advantages which the colonies of America have derived from the policy of Europe. What are those which Europe has derived from the discovery and colonisation of America? Those advantages may be divided, first, into the general advantages which Europe, considered as one great country, has derived from those great events; and, secondly, into the particular advantages which each colonising country has derived from the colonies which particularly belong to it, in consequence of the authority or dominion which it exercises over them.:
The general advantages which Europe, considered as one great country, has derived from the discovery and colonisation of America, consist, first, in the increase of its enjoyments; and, secondly, in the augmentation of its industry.
The surplus produce of America, imported into Europe, furnishes the inhabitants of this great continent with a variety of commodities which they could not otherwise have possessed; some for conveniency and use, some for pleasure, and some for ornament, and thereby contributes to increase their enjoyments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations#Long-term_economic_growth
Recall on Hitler's view of western colonialism, for comparison.
...the white races have imposed their will by force, and the influence they have had on the native inhabitants has been negligible
...
The white races did, of course, give some things to the natives, and they were the worst gifts that they could possibly have made, those plagues of our own modern world-materialism, fanaticism, alcoholism and syphilis. ... One solitary success must be conceded to the colonizers: everywhere they have succeeded in arousing hatred, a hatred that urges these peoples, awakened from their slumbers by us, to rise and drive us out. - Adolf Hitler, 7th February 1945
Source : Bormann, Martin – Testament of Adolf Hitler (Hitler-Bormann Documents) Page 13
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ0nDhWk_x0
-
(https://64.media.tumblr.com/02d3b918bc70f4724066f842e65c4924/d52da00c5e8b7c94-ed/s1280x1920/7bf479a58ab7e5b162441b7657778bd5681e75fa.jpg)
-
(https://64.media.tumblr.com/a0eb6394429470a968a1cb77d6260991/5e56fca4212fae12-01/s1280x1920/9676e041784a1a2dde640e0d67d6533f3bbf492b.jpg)
-
(https://bpb-eu-w2.wpmucdn.com/blogs.lincoln.ac.uk/dist/5/2052/files/2016/02/Empire-2.png)
Source :
https://whorunsbritain.blogs.lincoln.ac.uk/2016/02/02/what-does-the-british-public-really-think-about-the-empire/
43% of British people need to be replaced by the populations who discourage the western colonialism in order to prevent future colonialism by the populations who have desire to expand and colonize again the entire world. Or the Britain should implement decisions without democratic approval which punish the majority masses because of their evil preferences
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bu6cEGH2y8
-
God made Europe in His own image and now the rest of mankind will be made in the image of Europe.”
That word sounds like description of Yahweh in the Old Testament. Therefore to defeat the West we must defeat Judaism, Western Civilization is result of Judaic philosophical worldview, therefore the West will not defeated if Western Civilization not yet die
-
Enemy conversation:
https://twitter.com/makeEuropaSnow/status/1659786405265182720
If it weren't for the White Race Western Civilization wouldn't exist, anything great in the world wouldn't EXIST. We wouldn't be living in a warm house with HEATING invented and built by White Men!
This part about heating is correct:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/issues/decolonized-housing-(america-edition)/msg10221/#msg10221
which is why we need to kill Western civilization ASAP.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fg6BHicWAAQvMhF?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Our enemies literally thinks the Western way of heating (diagram on the right) is superior FFS.....
Here are some of their based responses:
Truth! I like to say that we have Manifest Destiny in our hearts. No one else has the desire to invent, conquer, build, and improve our surroundings like those descended from White Europeans.
we find valuable resources and utilize them whilst the Natives just stare at us with a dumb look on their faces.
Edmund Gustav Albrecht Husserl (1859 – 1938) German philosopher says:
“Naturally the “Europeanization of all foreign parts of the world” is the destiny of the earth. God made Europe in His own image and now the rest of mankind will be made in the image of Europe.”
Husserl also looks like what we would expect:
(https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.4317518877.7475/st,small,507x507-pad,600x600,f8f8f8.jpg)
-
Worthless arguments such as the following, not so long ago found only on far-right blogs, are now found in mainstream journalism:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/no-moral-case-britain-paying-060000493.html
There is no moral case for Britain paying slavery reparations
I say that reparations are not the best thing for victim bloodlines to be demanding (instead, they should demand that all colonizer bloodlines be eliminated), but I definitely agree that Britain needs to be held accountable for its past actions.
the call for Britain to pay reparations for slavery is absurd. It is true that some Britons, including, it seems, at least one of the King’s distant ancestors, were involved in trading and owning African slaves from about 1650 to the early 1800s.
...
But the context was this. Slavery was a universal institution, practised on every continent by people of every skin colour.
Except for the inconvenient facts that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Britain
a law of Ine of Wessex stated that anyone selling his own countryman, whether bond or free, across the sea, was to pay his own weregild in penalty, even when the man sold was guilty of a crime.[20]
In 1102, the Church Council of London convened by Anselm issued a decree: "Let no one dare hereafter to engage in the infamous business, prevalent in England, of selling men like animals."[27]
Some historians, like John Gillingham, have asserted that by about 1200, the institution of slavery was largely non-existent in the British Isles.[25]
So why did Britain, which centuries prior to the colonial era had already decided that slavery was bad (back when the enslaved were "white"), suddenly practice it from the beginning of the colonial era (when the enslaved were "non-white")? Being subjected to this double-standard is what reparations are being demanded for.
Africans were capturing and selling other Africans to Romans and Arabs centuries before Europeans entered the market in the mid-1400s.
Yes, but without the double-standard. Therefore they can argue that slavery was a institution they regarded as acceptable no matter who was being enslaved, whereas Britain (and the other Western colonial powers with similar "white"/"non-white" double-standards) cannot. It is similar to how a state in which meat-eating is legal so long as it is not human meat being eaten is far more systematically unjust than another state in which eating human meat is legal along with other meat-eating.
If some Britons profited from it, so did those Africans involved in slave-trading.
No one is saying Britain should not have purchased "non-white" slaves. But, once purchased, Britain should have treated them the same way they treated "white" slaves for whose release they paid ransom to Barbary corsairs etc.. They did not. Being subjected to this double-standard is what reparations are being demanded for.
Finally, the double-standard continues:
The idea of reparations can sometimes make good sense. No one disputes that Germany’s post-1945 government should have restored stolen property to its owners or compensated them for its loss. In those circumstances, the identities of the Jewish wronged and the Nazi wrongdoers, and the relationship between original victims and surviving family members, were clear. And the harm done was definite and quantifiable.
::)
(But at least this paragraph proves that Jews are "white".)
-
Duchesne again:
https://twitter.com/dr_duchesne/status/1654084910586404867
British civilized nonwhite world, gave India a proper language and legal system, abolished their savage custom of widow burning, built ports, railways, and taught them manners --- and Africans would have remained enslaved cannibals without UK civilizing mission.
See also:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/colonialism-as-viewed-by-westerners/msg4834/#msg4834
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/issues/legal-decolonization/msg18816/?topicseen#msg18816
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/issues/legal-decolonization/msg17454/?topicseen#msg17454
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/issues/legal-decolonization/msg17219/?topicseen#msg17219
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/issues/social-decolonization/msg13858/?topicseen#msg13858
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/issues/indian-attitudes/msg17668/?topicseen#msg17668
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/issues/indian-attitudes/msg17669/?topicseen#msg17669
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYYST7750S4
See also:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/western-civilization-sustainable-evil/msg10137/?topicseen#msg10137
The salmon also "could have families".
Dennis Prager behaves like Karl Marx who still attempting to shows positive opinions on "black" slavery by the "whites"
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYYST7750S4
See also:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/western-civilization-sustainable-evil/msg10137/?topicseen#msg10137
The salmon also "could have families".
-
From our enemies:
https://www.amren.com/features/2023/04/reforging-america-part-i/
Western history shows a remarkable post-Renaissance arc. In the 18th Century, new forms of thought and government conceived in the salons of Paris and the meetinghouses of colonial America challenged ideas about the relationship between man and government. This unleashed an unparalleled growth in productivity, which fueled a new round of European colonization around the world.
Today, the remarkable innovation and creativity that built the great expansive European empires — British, Dutch, French, Russian, Spanish, Portuguese, and German — have come under attack.
...
Rather than celebrating the unmatched global prosperity driven by white ingenuity, we find ourselves now asked to apologize for it.
The new dogmas have supplanted the traditional figure of the aged white man made wise by a lifetime of experience with that of the wizened black woman
...
Today, Indian activists and their white fellow travelers are demanding what they call “land acknowledgments” — public admissions that a given parcel of land was stolen. If one were to suggest to our white ancestors who conquered North America the idea of such land acknowledgements, their response would be total befuddlement. We conquered the land; it is ours. Now, however, we seem intent on giving it away.
Compare White Nationalism with Authentic Communism. We will see similarity
Recall
Slavery, at its time, represented a great leap beyond barbarism. Slavery was a necessary stage in the development of the productive forces, culture and society. As explained by Hegel: "It is not from slavery, but through slavery that humans become free". (Hegel, Philosophy of History)
Likewise capitalism is also a necessary and progressive stage in society. However, like slavery, primitive communism and feudalism (see section 2), capitalism has long ceased to represent a necessary and progressive social system. It is already rickety because of the deep contradictions that lie within it, and will in time be overthrown by the rise of socialism, which is represented by the modern proletariat. Private ownership of the means of production and the nation-state, which are the basic features of capitalist society, which originally marked a step forward, now only hinders the development of the productive forces and threatens all the progress that has been made after centuries of human development.
...
An abundant economy will be made possible by the application of socialist planning to industry, science and engineering, which has been established by capitalism, on a global scale
Source : https://www.marxist.com/apa-itu-marxisme-bagian-pertama-materialisme-dialektis.htm
"Without slavery, North America, the most progressive of countries, would be transformed into a patriarchal country. Wipe out North America from the map of the world and you will have anarchy— the complete decay of modern commerce and civilization. Abolish slavery and you will have wiped America off the map of nations.10- Karl Heinrich Marx
What Marx was saying in effect was that Negro slaves were needed to produce raw cotton; cotton was the basic raw material of modern capitalist industry; therefore, Negro slavery was necessary to the survival of America and to the survival of modern civilization.
Source : Karl Marx Racist by Nathaniel Weyl, page 75
The point is, White Nationalism, similarly to Communism, see western colonialism and its so-called progress as a good thing regardless its oppression and it's evilness to the colonized
They will embrace and enforce authentic Marxist-Socialism someday if they win
Compare White Nationalism with Winston Churchill, leader of the Liberal-Capitalist British Empire on viewing "European Empires" and westernization
In 1937, he told the Palestine Royal Commission: "I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."
Churchill certainly believed in racial hierarchies and eugenics, says John Charmley, author of Churchill: The End of Glory. In Churchill's view, white protestant Christians were at the top, above white Catholics, while Indians were higher than Africans, he adds. "Churchill saw himself and Britain as being the winners in a social Darwinian hierarchy."
Source : https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29701767
Recall on Hitler's view on westernization. Never forget
(https://64.media.tumblr.com/5e1670c61b0f2f430e3300eb6352dc5a/4f15adcd00022294-a8/s1280x1920/855f5d7658133a87b54d7ae6a4708ef219f5cfc4.jpg)
-
From our enemies:
https://www.amren.com/features/2023/04/reforging-america-part-i/
Western history shows a remarkable post-Renaissance arc. In the 18th Century, new forms of thought and government conceived in the salons of Paris and the meetinghouses of colonial America challenged ideas about the relationship between man and government. This unleashed an unparalleled growth in productivity, which fueled a new round of European colonization around the world.
Today, the remarkable innovation and creativity that built the great expansive European empires — British, Dutch, French, Russian, Spanish, Portuguese, and German — have come under attack.
...
Rather than celebrating the unmatched global prosperity driven by white ingenuity, we find ourselves now asked to apologize for it.
The new dogmas have supplanted the traditional figure of the aged white man made wise by a lifetime of experience with that of the wizened black woman
...
Today, Indian activists and their white fellow travelers are demanding what they call “land acknowledgments” — public admissions that a given parcel of land was stolen. If one were to suggest to our white ancestors who conquered North America the idea of such land acknowledgements, their response would be total befuddlement. We conquered the land; it is ours. Now, however, we seem intent on giving it away.
-
I think it’s a fallacy to simply assume that colonial “benefits” such as infrastructure and education systems and what have you, could only have spread to the colonized lands via colonization. E.g.; Turkey and Iran were not colonized, but still managed to get such benefits
The above attitude is False Leftist. True Leftists should not want Western infrastructure/education/etc. at all, even if obtained without colonization.
When I went to UK last year, I looked the city and beautiful building, beautiful street great infrastructure and many great things.
This is also False Leftist. True Leftists should see ugliness in Western buildings/infrastructure/etc..
Hitler is the only True Leftist in your post.
-
How "non-white" westerners see colonialism
Westerners's view of Colonialism (Rightist)
Anonymous - I’ll have to go anonymous for fear of being labelled a sell-out:) I can not speak for all countries, because every country had a different colonial experience. As for my country, which is Morocco, I would have to say that colonialism was an entirely good thing. Yes, the French came as brutal conquerors and oppressors, I’m not denying that, but the Moroccan authorities were themselves brutal and oppressive, so it was just another authority doing what our own leaders had done for centuries. The Moroccan rulers who lost the country to the French were corrupt, sectarian thugs. The only difference was that your oppressor suddenly had another religion than yourself. ‘
The French invested quite a lot in Moroccan infrastructure, building roads, railroads, docks and pumping out entire cities. Casablanca is France’s gift to Morocco. We also have France to thank for Morocco’s centralized, effective bureaucracy. Without the French, Morocco would still be a Medieval feudal state.
I can’t speak for our neighbors, but Algeria and Tunisia are both countries that are much better off than Morocco, in terms of development. The French did a lot to build up those countries as well. Tunisia in particular is a French-built success story. Because of France (and the Tunisians) it is the most developed country in Africa.
Other countries have entirely different experiences, but North Africa really benefited from colonialism.
Anti-westerners view of colonialism (1) (Leftist)
Khalid Elhassan- Good for the colonists, bad for the colonized, with varying degrees of just how bad. E.g.; I doubt there was any “good” done by Belgian colonizers that could come anywhere close to balancing the horrors they visited upon the Congo, where the natives were forced to work on plantations as de facto slave labor,
...
with widespread mutilation and murder as penalties for refusal to joyfully slave away for the colonial authorities.
...
About 10 million Africans died in the Belgian Congo as a result of colonialism, with millions more mutilated and tortured.
Nor would the Hereros or Namas of German South-West Africa, subjected by their German colonial masters to the now nearly forgotten Herero and Namaqua genocide , have thought the benefits of colonialism outweighed the costs.
Except in the rarest of instances, enclaves that were created from scratch by the colonialists such as Singapore or Hong Kong, I don’t think any benefits of colonialism outweighed the costs of colonization.
Also, I think it’s a fallacy to simply assume that colonial “benefits” such as infrastructure and education systems and what have you, could only have spread to the colonized lands via colonization. E.g.; Turkey and Iran were not colonized, but still managed to get such benefits and they’re not doing so bad by the standards of their neighborhood. Indeed, they’re doing better than many other countries in the region that had been colonized.
Japan and China (except for tiny enclaves) weren’t colonized, while India and Pakistan were. I don’t think India or Pakistan are faring much better than China, let alone Japan.
It is possible for countries to receive and enjoy the supposed benefits of colonialism without having been colonized.
False-Leftist view of Colonialism (1) (Centrist or Moderate)
Jakub Handlíř- I think that the views on colonialism are often very extreme
Your opinion is extreme in a way that you forget the suffering, exploitation and injustices that the colonial powers often brought on their colonies.
The other extreme stance is that colonialism was a pure evil that’s responsible for everything that’s wrong with this world. This stance is often represented by many of the citizens and also rulers of the former colonies who find it more easy to blame the evil Western colonial powers than admit their own mistakes and faults.
This stance is also connected to the myth of “noble savage” which is idealisation of the pre-colonial life of the native people while ignoring all negative aspects of that life.
My own opinion is that the colonial powers did what countries were doing for the entire history; expanding their territory and bending the weak countries to their will.
Sure, some colonial powers brought better technology, medicine etc. to their colonies but it wasn’t done from the goodness of their hearts but because of an feeling of superiority that it’s the colonial power’s moral burden to civilize the natives whether they want to or not.
But this feeling isn’t unique. All civilizations thought that they were superior to other. The Western powers just had such a massive technological advantage that it allowed them to expand their colonial empires further than anyone has ever done before.
But the colonial past isn’t an excuse for the current state of affairs. Especially if the population of the former colonies often doesn’t know European history and think that all European countries had colonies. It’s quite the opposite in fact.
...
My entire point is that colonialism is a complicated issue that can’t by extreme stances. Nothing in the world is purely white or purely black. Everything is in the various shades of grey. Colonialism included.
False-Leftist view of Colonialism (2) (Centrist or Moderate)
Mithun Karmakar- Ruined? can’t say for sure.
destroyed intrinsic cultures? yes.
killed millions in the process? yes yes.
Drained of their resources? Yes yes yes.
In Australia they reduced indegeneous population by 90% .. over 7million dead
In America Natives were reduces by 95%.. Over 130 millions dead.
In Africa, over 9 million dead and countless taken as slaves.
…just a few examples. With them gone their cultures and values.
Where would the world be if Europeans were not a mass murdering colonizing burglars? Well, a lot of people today would probably wont be dieing of hunger and having to live in a crippled economy.
Technology would have spread way better due to having more ability to buy, advancement of human values would have advanced much better if they didnt have to recover from 100s of years of colonization backlog, Countries in the world would have better cooperation and collaboration if colonizing conflicts didnt have to give birth to a hundred other problems.
Did it ruin though? probably!
Anti-westerners view of colonialism (2) (Leftist)
Harshhh Agarwal. - When I went to UK last year, I looked the city and beautiful building, beautiful street great infrastructure and many great things.When I saw these giant cities I also think about other side of it ,i think of famine of bengal our ancestor struggle to british,jute worker in india,sending jute to britisher.I think of human who was slaved in Africa brought from other cities of Africa,all profits are sponged in city like london.Within 200 year britisher stoled 45 trillion dollar,we never got paid for that in compensation.When britisher left India ,our literacy rate was 13 percent,so much of so called civilization,our land were destroyed,people were killed,coil was foisted on India.Then they left us in such condition where we can never think how to reorganise us.When I listen people like boris johnson,joe biden,immanuel macron lecturing us on human right.How condoscending u are ,you condoscended to us for 400 years.They are condoscending today too bcz these have colonial mentality and for them colonoialism in past was a so called civilization.These people want to lecure us that we are responsible for our colonization bcz they will never accept that they are the people who are to be blame.They want to make us believe that we all were together in this colonization .They love lecturing us bcz they have a colonial mentality.They lend us money and every time say that we are lending u ,it was ours money.
There are climate justice movement in which they try to tell us that we have a future,what future u are talking about children in africa,asia,latina america dont have a present.These children are not worried about future because they dont have present.Its a western illogical bourgeois slogan to justify everything.2 billion people dont have food to eat and they are lecturing us on future and reduce your consumption.Have they ever thought how does it sound to a child who havent eat from few days.These people want to tell u what are their issue is but are they willing to listen?
They want to justify every thing.
Every monument of civilization is monument of barbarism.
False-Leftist view of Colonialism (3) (Centrist or Moderate)
Andrés Parzanese - Edit: The question’s details before the merge contained something along the lines of: “It brought technology to primitive societies. I think people who think it’s bad need a history lesson.”
Yeah maybe it was a good thing, after all.
But I think you should get off your cloud because you are the one who needs a history lesson.
Are you aware that some of those “Primitive societies” were actually culturally rich? And that some of them, like the Aztecs, had fortunes that were sacked and taken back to Europe?
Did you know that whole empires and civilizations were destroyed because of Colonialism?
When you are the bully things seem great, but I think that exterminating people is also pretty primitive.
Things aren’t black or white, Colonialism might have the good effect you, in your condescending manner mention but it also brought instability and death to many regions.
Ultimately I think things could have been done better, but sadly things were different back then.
Source : https://www.quora.com/On-the-whole-was-colonialism-a-good-or-bad-thing
Homeworks, match their views to Hitler's view. Which views are same like Hitler's view on colonialism?
(https://64.media.tumblr.com/5e1670c61b0f2f430e3300eb6352dc5a/4f15adcd00022294-a8/s1280x1920/855f5d7658133a87b54d7ae6a4708ef219f5cfc4.jpg)
-
I agree with the following litmus test designed by our enemies:
https://vdare.com/posts/they-will-tear-down-every-statue-to-white-men-in-america-columbus-statue-in-newark-nj-replaced-with-harriet-tubman-monument
There’s a litmus test for those still believing some sort of compromise can be made with the tidal wave of insanity remaking our insanity, and it’s direct: Christopher Columbus is a hero, who advanced European civilization on what is known as the North American continent.
His spirit animated white men to aspire for not just Manifest Destiny, but the heavens.
We must realize the footsteps of Columbus were not in vain, but worthy of perpetuating.
I agree there is no compromise. Anyone who considers Columbus to be a positive figure must have their bloodline eliminated.
-
Our enemies proudly recall the slave trade:
https://www.amren.com/features/2023/03/slavery-and-its-discontents/
In the age of sail, it was very hard for Europeans to beat against prevailing winds directly across the North Atlantic. It was much easier to follow the wind south to Africa and exchange manufactured goods for slaves. The next step — the middle passage — was to ride the easterly winds in the lower latitudes to the New World and exchange slaves for sugar, cotton, and tobacco; then run back to Europe on the northern westerlies.
(https://www.amren.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/TriangularTrade.png)
The middle passage usually took seven or eight weeks, but could be made in as few as three.
When the trade began in the 16th century, slavers had to cruise the coast, picking up a dozen slaves here, a score there, and it took time to load. Later, slave-trading ports were established, where a ship could quickly load a full cargo of several hundred. This required fortifications to protect both slaves and landed European trade goods from African raiders. Europeans therefore built forts, such as Gorée in Senegal, and Anamabo and Elmina in Ghana. Elmina Castle was the first — and now the oldest — European-style building south of the Sahara, built originally by the Portuguese in 1482 for the gold and ivory trade.
(https://www.amren.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/ElminaCastle.jpg)
...
Today, much is made of the horrors of the middle passage, and a death rate of 15 percent on a voyage was not uncommon. However, many white crew and trans-Atlantic passengers also died. Furnas quotes what he calls “a fairly impartial observer [who] noted in the early 1800s that, thanks (he thought) to their being stowed naked and on a vegetable diet, the average cargo of slaves came ashore in the West Indies in better shape than the average unit of troops.” Furnas points out that it was good business to keep valuable slaves alive and healthy: “Whereas slaver captains and surgeons usually received small bonuses per slave landed, deaths at sea were profitable to emigrant ships, for emigrants paid fares in advance and no longer consumed provisions once their dead bodies had slid over side.”
Later in the trade, the British imposed limits on the number of slaves that could be transported, but: “[the rule of] three slaves to two tons of ship imposed by Britain in 1788 was the same ratio as that for British soldiers on transports 40 years later.” As for fraternization below decks, “the hands were supposed to stay away from the slave women, not for decorum, but to prevent quarrels. In well-disciplined ships the rule was observed.”
Just being in Africa was deadly for whites: “In 1825, a detachment of 108 British soldiers stationed in Gambia lost 87 men in four months.” Furnas notes that on the island of Fernando Po (now called Bioko and part of Equatorial Guinea), the death rate for whites was so high that the commandant always had two details constantly busy, one making coffins, the other digging graves.
To them, the real problem was abolitionism:
Abolition mania
The British abolition campaign was the first “social movement,” of the kind so familiar today. Dedicated people wrote tracts, gave lectures, preached from pulpits, and lobbied Parliament with the goal of ending, first, the slave trade and then slavery itself. One of the goals of ending the trade was to reduce the supply of slaves, who were commonly worked to death, in the hope that their value would increase and owners would treat them better. As in the United States, women were fervent, indispensable supporters.
In both countries, abolition was overwhelmingly Christian. Furnas describes the influential British abolitionists who became known as the Clapham Sect: “In their view, the principal reason for thinking West Indian slavery evil was not so much that it whipped and bullied Negroes — though that was a crying shame too — as that it denied their souls opportunity for salvation and tempted masters to cruelty and fornication.” It did not much matter whether abolition improved the lives of slaves; the goal was to convert them.
...
Furnas argues that many abolitionists, Christian or not, were mentally unbalanced. The movement had:
An enticing savor of infallibility that attracted schizoid arrogance — a crucial ingredient in most crankishness — though often below the pathological level. It lent antislaveryism a greater appeal to those secretly proud of possessing the higher sensitivity, greater intelligence and social courage implied by their previous espousing of such glowing causes as phrenology and vegetarianism. The religious crank often added to the above theology a deep conviction that the end of the world was nigh and his battle against others’ sins had to be frantically intensified, lest the great day find him and his allies unfaithful stewards.
Furnas writes that “many an abolitionist of Old [John] Brown’s time thus piled multiple causes, some admirable, some freakish on one another, and combined antislaveryism with behavior that was, to say the least of it, neurotic.”
Abolition thus united legions of cranks: “Practically every reformer was antislavery . . . and conversely, Abolitionism derived much of its special momentum from the abnormally vivacious energies of the Reformers,” who were full of “wishful credulity, mistrust of objective reality, self-dramatization.”
They were like anti-racists today: all-purpose fanatics. Today, whatever else he is, every climate-change nut, militant nudist, Covid-commissar, story-hour drag queen, Antifa militant, anarchist, or Trotskyite is sure to be an anti-racist. And just like his psychological forebears, he is determined to force his views on everyone.
...
For British and American abolitionists, the Haitian revolution was the model for what they hoped for elsewhere. Furnas notes that “the greatest effort that the Negro slave ever made in his own behalf, left his country ruined — ruined still to this day,” but abolitionists touted it as a great success.
...
Furnas argues that abolitionism eventually veered from Christian duty into hatred: “Fervid reprehension of others’ sins leads almost irresistibly to sinner hating.” William Lloyd Garrison said of Southern congressmen: “We do not acknowledge them to be within the pale of Christianity . . . of humanity.” He called slaveholders “human hyenas and jackals who delight to listen to Negro groans, to revel in Negro blood, and to batten upon human flesh.” Abolitionists thrilled to every tale of slaveholder cruelty, real or imagined; it justified hatred.
...
For evidence of the near-insanity of some of the abolitionists, Furnas explains how Haiti assumed a new and different significance:
Hayti’s failure to stabilize herself gradually grew so glaring that fewer and fewer stateside antislaveryites, however careless about the facts, could respect the new nation. The immense impact of Hayti on them came rather from the blood-lustful assault of Negroes and affranchis [freed blacks] on the whites. These were taken to mean that a slave economy necessarily seethed with readiness to conspire and rebel; that such risings stood a good chance of success; that they inevitably meant looting, arson, torture, death and **** after the Haytian example.
One of John Brown’s backers was Thomas Parker, a deeply religious man, whom one of the leading abolitionists, Lydia Maria Child, called “the greatest man, morally and intellectually, that our country ever produced.” He wrote: “The fire of vengeance may be waked up even in an African’s heart, especially when it is fanned by the wickedness of a white man; then it runs from man to man, from town to town. What shall put it out? The white man’s blood!”
James Redpath was an abolitionist journalist who promoted John Brown and later wrote his biography. For him, there was no price too high to pay for freedom for blacks: “If only one man survived to relate how his race heroically fell, and to enjoy the freedom they had won, the liberty of that solitary Negro would be cheaply purchased by the universal slaughter of his people and their oppressors.”
...
The most fanatical abolitionists came so to hate slaveholders that they regretted having even to live in the same country with them. Garrison began to despise the American nation itself because it countenanced slavey. The Union was “conceived in sin,” “brought forth in iniquity,” “a covenant with death,” “an agreement with hell,” a “refuge of lies.” Many abolitionists wanted to sever ties with the South because slavery was a disease “too deep for cure without amputation.”
...
In the 1830s and ’40s there had been proposals for gradual and sometimes compensated abolition, but this annoyed abolitionists. As late as 1857, Elihu Burritt, a diplomat and reformer of considerable stature, called for federal action to free the slaves and compensate owners by selling federal land. Garrison called this “paying a thief for giving up stolen property, and not acknowledging that his crime was a crime.”
I agree that the abolitionists can be accurately called Christians.
-
According to our enemies, it's OK for theft to be "white":
https://www.amren.com/blog/2022/12/verified-hate-take-the-mfers-out/
The Rosetta Stone had been built into a wall of an old fort. A Napoleonic officer recognized its importance. When the British took possession after they defeated the French in Egypt, they too recognized its value and today it’s at the British Museum. Without European colonialism and the Western devotion to truth even during wartime, the Rosetta Stone would still be propping up a wall. It belongs to the West.
-
Continuing from:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/sports-as-a-platform-for-protest/msg16568/#msg16568
a rightist responds:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11447945/FIFAs-Infantino-tells-UK-allow-migrants-knows-gay-like-ginger.html
Lee Anderson, Conservative MP for Ashfield, Nottinghamshire, said: ‘I had red hair and freckles as a child. This guy needs to grow up and get a grip.
‘Instead of apologising for the next 3,000 years, the rest of the world should be thanking the UK for leading the way. This great country of ours has been a gift to the world. So he can ‘do one’.’
-
frenzied press coverage about a black conspiracy to kill whites led to a mob lynching the black men, who “had committed no crime.”
Jews also say that they are attacked constantly by the muslims of Palestine while they have advanced machine weaponry and military vehicles more deadly than what the Palestinian muslims have. Should we take it seriously?..... That's the another analogue to answer that Amren's post
-
Our enemies openly and fondly reminisce about the times when "whites" ruled Memphis:
https://www.amren.com/features/2022/09/the-great-replacement-memphis/
According to a report from the Freedman’s Bureau, which some might consider biased, Irish police forced blacks off the sidewalk and a fight resulted. The next day, there appeared “a crowd of colored men, principally discharged soldiers, many of whom were more or less intoxicated.” A few were “very noisy and boisterous.” Police tried to arrest the men but were attacked by “Negroes” who tried “to rescue their comrades.” One white policeman accidentally shot himself in the confusion and died. The Freedman’s Bureau reports that:
About this time the police fired upon unoffending Negroes remote from the riotous quarter. Colored soldiers with whom the police first had trouble had returned in the meantime to Fort Pickering. The police was soon reinforced and commenced firing on the colored people, men, women and children, in that locality, killing and wounding several.
Shortly after, the City Recorder (John C. Creighton) arrived upon the ground (corner of Causey and Vance Streets) and in a speech which received three hearty cheers from the crowd there assembled, councilled and urged the whites to arm and kill every Negro and drive the last one from the city. Then during this night the Negroes were hunted down by police, firemen and other white citizens, shot, assaulted, robbed, and in many instances their houses searched under the pretense of hunting for concealed arms, plundered, and then set on fire, during which no resistance so far as we can learn was offered by the Negroes.
The report says that whites attacked blacks for days
...
Whites kept blacks out of politics through various “disenfranchising acts” passed by the state, including a poll tax and strict registration requirements. The Memphis Appeal-Avalanche wrote on March 7, 1892 that Memphis was the “most orderly city of its size on the continent,” boasting an efficient police administration and the “safety of life and property here having come to be a matter of fame.” It wrote this after the “Curve lynching,” a case promoted by muckraker Ida B. Wells, and the first lynching in the city after the Civil War.
Safety of whose life and property?
A white mob lynched Thomas Moss, Calvin McDowell, and Henry Stewart who, according to Wells, owned a grocery store called “The Curve.” There was a fight at the store between blacks and whites, which the whites reportedly lost. They vowed to “clean out” the grocery, and the store posted guards. The guards shot at whites who were supposedly raiding the shop, but they were said to be a sheriff and plainclothes deputies.
On March 6, 1892, The Appeal-Avalanche called what ensued “a bloody riot,” and wrote a colorful tale of blacks storing weapons and holding secret meetings. According to Wells, frenzied press coverage about a black conspiracy to kill whites led to a mob lynching the black men, who “had committed no crime.” She concluded that lynching was “an excuse to get rid of Negroes who were acquiring wealth and property and thus keep the race terrorized and ‘keep the n—– down.’”
Classic racist projection.
Yet to our enemies, what is lamentable is not that all of the above happened, but that "non-whites" also remember that all of the above happened and hence understandably do not like "whites":
In 1980, there was still a slim white majority of 51.3 percent. By 1990, just 43.7 percent of residents were white; in 2000, 34.4 percent, in 2010, 29.4 percent, in 2020, just 27.9 percent.
As blacks took power, they erased white history. In 2013, the city council renamed three parks that honored Confederates. In 2017, it removed a statue of General Nathan Bedford Forrest and in 2020, it decided to dig him and his wife up rebury them 200 miles away. Even Andrew Jackson isn’t safe in Memphis. In 2021, the Memphis Brooks Museum of Art removed a picture of President Andrew Jackson from display.
When the Forrest statue came down, then-mayor of Memphis, a black man named A.C. Wharton, explained that the general was from “a time gone by,” one that’s “not a time to be honored.”
...
Tucker Carlson talked about Memphis recently in a powerful monologue. He spoke about the city’s past glories, when it still honored the history that so embarrassed former Mayor Wharton.
When our enemies unambiguously tell us who they are, we should believe them.
-
For the record, Arab slave owners did have a tendency towards Eurocentrism:
https://academic.oup.com/book/10928/chapter-abstract/159193837
White female slaves were more expensive than black ones and they were rarely used for rough labor and filled higher positions in domestic and administrative employment.
as our enemies are also happy to report:
https://www.amren.com/features/2017/02/black-slavery-middle-east/
Among domestic slave women, blacks performed menial work while whites tended to be personal attendants of their owners. White slave women cost between three and ten times more than brown-skinned Abyssinian women; black slave women cost half to one-third the cost of brown slave women. [9]
So Arab slave owners were not fair either. But they way in which they were unfair was not ethnotribalist, but instead Eurocentrist.
-
Why the Arabs were doing something racially discriminative in the past. The answer is the ideology which written by the website author below :
Pre-modern forms of anti-blackness in the Muslim world shared differences but also unsettling similarities to modern anti-black racism. Among their similarities, anti-blackness in the pre-modern Muslim world contained within its ideological repertoire: Aristotelian theories of natural slavery, the Hamitic myth, actual systems of enslavement, geoclimatic racial determinism (derived from the ancient Egyptian and Greco-Roman Mediterranean-centric worldview)
He also writes how the "blacks" were still attempted to be treated fairly in the Islamic Empire's territory
There is also the example of blacks being enslaved for military and domestic work from Al-Andalus/Morocco to Ottoman lands, Southern Iran, and even the Indian coast. At the same time, black statesmen, generals, prominent scholars and everyday people in these very same places existed as dignified individuals and fully as themselves. Islamicate civilization in Sudanic Africa, or Bilad al-Sudan, is a testament to the ways in which Islam in what we now call Africa flourished. Sudanic Africa attained a high level of civilizational organization in an indigenous way without a systemic external imposition of said civilization coming from so-called foreigners like Turks, Arabs or Persians.
And, according to the written contents from the writer. The "blacks" were originally indigenous to the "North Africa", but they got marginalized because of that ideology. See this written content below :
The millennia-old indigeneity of black peoples in North Africa, the Levant and the Gulf, for example, has been erased in mainstream consciousness due to Eurocentric nationalist narratives and geographies that created binaries along the Saharan desert and Red Sea that had not existed in the same way in the past. These modern forms of anti-blackness have both added to and subsumed the pre-existing prejudices in various regions which had earlier been less systematic or even non-existent.
Source : https://themaydan.com/2020/10/anti-blackness-in-the-muslim-world-beyond-apologetics-and-orientalism/
So, the racism of "Arabs" to the "blacks" was not because of Islamic teachings or something but the ancient White Nationalist ideology, I mean Aristotelianism and "Hamitic Myth" or "Curse of Ham" verses from the Old Testament holy book.
Europe, the "civilized world" and democracy are the problem...
-
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/leftist-vs-rightist-moral-circles/msg15202/#msg15202
I said that the muslims were fair on enslave people, all of people from any racial-background can be muslims's slaves. Different to how the "White Europeans" see who can be slaves
I'm explained to him that indeed all groups of people commited slavery. But the racist slavery was uniquely only did by "White Europeans" during colonial era.
I'm already explained the hypocrisy of "White Europeans" when they did war and enslaved their opponents. They only enslaved and tortured ruthlessly the "colored", but kept freeing "whites"
I explained to him that if the "White Europeans" were just during that time, they rather colonize and enslave their fellow "whites" rather than the other "colored" people.
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/leftist-vs-rightist-moral-circles/msg15303/#msg15303
And I also explained to him that the "Africans" and "Arabs" did not enslaved the another people with specific "racial" category too like how the "White Europeans" behave.
the Turks were enslaved people from all "racial" backgrounds, so they more fair than how the "White Europeans" enslaved the conquered people.
The above follows the line of argument that we have long advocated:
Western slavery was indeed more despicable than other chattel institutions (including Roman) throughout history because it alone exhibited willingness to do to “non-whites” what it had already recognized was wrong for “whites”.
and which is now also found here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade#Slavery_in_Africa_and_the_New_World_contrasted
In general, slavery in Africa was not heritable—that is, the children of slaves were free—while in the Americas, children of slave mothers were considered born into slavery. This was connected to another distinction: slavery in West Africa was not reserved for racial or religious minorities, as it was in European colonies
Indeed, the very statement by our enemies:
'Blacks sold their fellow blacks into slavery'
tacitly reminds us that "whites" did not sell their fellow "whites" into slavery (yet were happy to buy and sell "non-white" slaves, because "non-whites" were not viewed as fellows)! So who is worse?
Similarly, meat-eating humans who refuse to consume human meat are far more morally despicable than meat-eating humans who at least have no problem with consuming human meat also.
-
How are Aryanists supposed to respond to the idiotic platitudes 'Blacks sold their fellow blacks into slavery' and 'The Arabs had slaves and no one talks about them'?
-
https://us.yahoo.com/entertainment/america-first-crowd-sure-seems-192026022.html
The America First Crowd Sure Seems to Love British Colonialism Now That the Queen Is Dead
...
Tucker Carlson responded to the news on Thursday by praising Great Britain for “taking over the world,” arguing that the empire “was not perfect, but it was far more humane than any other, ever.”
“It’s gone now, barely even remembered,” the Fox News host continued. “Queen Elizabeth II was the last living link to a truly great Britain.” He then went on a screed about how Africa was better off when it was controlled by white people.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FcNd9DlX0AEstJy?format=jpg&name=medium)
...
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene
@RepMTG
The death of the Queen is the end of an era.
An era, in which, the world prospered more than any other time in history.
May she Rest In Peace.
Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk echoed Carlson and Greene on Friday. “British colonialism actually made the world decent,” he said after giddily announcing that the topic will “make the media lose their mind.”
“Certain cultures are better than others,” Kirk said after citing everything from the Magna Carta to Shakespeare. “Saying that out loud is a thought crime. British colonialism was the most benign global empire ever.”
The “certain culture are better than others” bit gets to the heart of the conservative defense of British imperialism, in that “certain” boils down to “white” and “others” boils down to “non-white.”
Steve King — the former Iowa representative with a rich history of racism — summed it up a little more explicitly on an MSNBC panel ahead of the 2016 election. “I’d ask you to go back through history and figure out, where are these contributions that have been made by these other categories of people that you’re talking about, where did any other subgroup of people contribute more to civilization?” he said in response to a comment about how the Republican Party is run by white people.
...
King reminded us, too. “Western Civilization is superior,” he wrote on Friday.
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/colonial-crimes-dw-documentary/
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/nigeria/
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/cameroon/
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/jamaica/
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/new-zealand/
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/the-opium-wars-part-1-foreign-mud/
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/indian-rebellion-1857/
-
More on the Doctrine of Discovery:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/doctrine-discovery-led-displacement-native-100015606.html
How did the King of Spain acquire a valid title to land in Alachua and neighboring counties, where Creek and Seminole people were then living?
The answer is the doctrine of discovery. In 1493 Pope Alexander VI, the notorious Borgia Pope, divided the Americas, Africa and Asia between Spain and Portugal on the grounds that their navigators had discovered the Western Hemisphere and sub-Saharan Africa.
An earlier Papal decree, Romanus Pontifex, which was issued and reissued by several of his predecessors, had established the right of the King of Portugal "to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens (i.e. Muslims) and pagans whatsoever, and all dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods."
These documents together gave European Christians exclusive rights to the land and resources of the rest of the world. They were a charter for enslaving and exploiting the people of Africa, Asia and America.
In other words, Vatican ethics matches Vatican aesthetics:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/western-civilization-is-ugly-48/msg3961/?topicseen#msg3961
Continuing:
We might dismiss them as historic curiosities except that Chief Justice John Marshall invoked both Papal documents in a unanimous Supreme Court decision in 1823 that established the right of the United States to dispose of the lands occupied by Native American tribes and of the people themselves. Marshall held that the doctrine of discovery gave European nations an absolute right to New World lands that they ceded to the United States by treaty.
Manifest Destiny is really just a limited application of the Doctrine of Discovery. I also suspect that the Doctrine of Discovery is is what MTG etc. are really thinking about when they refer to themselves as "Christian nationalists":
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/enemies/judeo-christian-theocracy-supporters-in-the-us-(dominionists)/msg15167/#msg15167
Continuing:
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in a unanimous Supreme Court decision in 2005 that, "Under the doctrine of discovery title to the lands occupied by Indians when the colonists arrived became vested in the sovereign — first the discovering European nations and later the original states and the United States."
Hence:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/jews-have-nothing-in-common-with-us!/msg14333/?topicseen#msg14333
Continuing:
The idea that sovereignty over North America belonged to the King of England or the King of Spain, who transferred their right to the United States by treaty, was too attractive to be set aside. Following the precedent set in earlier cases and appealing to international law, the Supreme Court determined in 1835 that the King of Spain's grant to the Arredondos was valid.
Which proves the need for:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/issues/legal-decolonization/
Continuing:
The Seminoles who had lived and farmed in Alachua County had already been forced from their homes under the Treaty of Moultrie Creek (1823) and would soon be sent on the Trail of Tears to Oklahoma under the Indian Removal Act (1830) and the Treaty of Payne's Landing (1832).
The first coffles of enslaved Africans were already on the march from South Carolina. This is the story embedded in the title to your property and mine.
-
"...The tour guide was so radical about slave treatment we felt we were being lectured and bashed about the slavery. My ancestors were from Sicily, never owned slaves..."
Answer :
But the Italians during colonial era worked together with the European colonialist nations which also commited slavery. But of course he care more about vacation rather than the truth.
"...and my husbands were German, and none of his ever owned slaves. ..."
Answer :
As long as the Germans did not seriously to make their people understand the horrors of colonialism and slavery through make it explained more and detail on their education institution and their historical forum. He still taken responsibility to be lectured... Until now the Germany, and other European nations even not take their evil colonial history seriously to it's citizens. Only the Holocaust history which still considered as "controversial" which lectured to their citizens in detail...
-
Reminds me of a "white" reviewer exposed on social media for, I **** you not, complaining about her trip being ruined because the tour guide of a plantation talked about what happened on plantations:
(https://i.redd.it/lvo3n8unx5f91.jpg)
It's all well and good that you didn't want to hear about something negative during what should have been a relaxing time. Most people, "white" or non-white, wouldn't want to hear about slavery all too much if that were their intention. The issue here is that you're "white" enough to think that a plantation would make for a relaxing tour in the first place. And even "whiter" to make visiting different plantations a regular thing for your family. "We came to get this history of a southern plantation-" but not the "black" history, right? I guess it's okay for history to be "white"
-
https://youtu.be/4S0zzC4rHv4
-
Cultural appropriation:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/cree-singer-reflects-speaking-law-011359391.html
TORONTO (Reuters) - A Cree woman who captured global attention with her anguished song before Pope Francis on Monday said she was moved to do so when he donned a gifted feathered headdress without first removing his skullcap - something she saw as disrespectful.
...
"He didn’t remove his law before allowing our law to be placed on his head," she told Reuters by phone from Winnipeg, adding the pope could have given the headdress back instead.
Further evidence of Francis' utter lack of sincerity (along with the wrongness of gifting him the headdress in the first place), as already pointed out here:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/issues/psychological-decolonization/msg14874/#msg14874
-
Previously:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/colonialism-as-viewed-by-westerners/msg12408/#msg12408
More people are talking about it now:
Letters to the Editor: Pope Francis, please denounce the 'Doctrine of Discovery'
...
The tragic boarding school issue is but a symptom of something more insidious. One of the articles you published on the pope's apology mentioned the Doctrine of Discovery and its papal origin. It was a legal concept that legitimized and advanced the European colonization of much of the world.
In 1455, Pope Nicholas V granted Portugal's King Alfonso V and other European colonizers the right to "invade, search out, capture, vanquish … and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery." The driving force was largely not religious; it was, rather, driven by more secular appetites cloaked in religious intent.
This concept was adopted into U.S. law by our own Supreme Court in 1823 in Johnson vs. McIntosh. This nefarious doctrine should be acknowledged and repudiated, but instead it remains a skeleton in our nation's closet.
See also:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/homo-hubris/msg14867/#msg14867
-
https://www.yahoo.com/news/indian-country-must-push-back-214916402.html
Indian Country Must Push Back on Conservative Attempts to Whitewash Boarding School History
...
About thirty years ago, I made a deal with myself to read at least one book a year written by a conservative right-winger so that I could try to understand the rationale behind their positions on race relations and governmental policy. As the years flew by and the United States became extremely polarized, I stopped reading conservative writings because I found many of their arguments lacked merit and were, quite often, mean-spirited and laced with paternalistic attitudes towards people of color.
So this past Monday when one of my business partners sent me a link to an article entitled “Stirring Up Hatred Against Indian Boarding Schools: The Interior Department joins the movement to rebrand education as cultural genocide,” I read with some hesitation. Published by The American Conservative, the article was written by one of the magazine’s senior editors, Helen Andrews.
Andrews takes issue with the Federal Indian Boarding School Initiative Investigative Report that was released on May 11, 2022. She accuses the U.S. Department of the Interior of making a big deal out of nothing.
“This attempt to create a national scandal over Indian boarding schools is a thoroughly political scheme contrived by activists to stoke outrage regardless of the facts. No surprise there, because that is what the issue has always been, from the very beginning,” Andrews writes.
“The strange thing about the residential schools outrage is that for decades the issue simply did not exist,” she continues.
Andrews is dead wrong. Native Americans have known the boarding school issue existed for more than a century.
...
The justification of the piece seems to be: Indian boarding schools were needed to bring Native Americans in from the dark ages.
...
“The investigation into the experience of American Indians forcibly removed from their homes and subjected to assimilation mills that used brainwashing tactics to strip away culture, language, spirituality, identity, and make no mistake treaty and trust obligations is not about blame but about reconciliation and healing,” Dr. Payment told me. “This political hate movement of anti-critical race theory is a dog whistle and attempt at moral and ethical absolution of the past. Manifest destiny was used to justify raping the land and stealing from the indigenous people as God’s will. We all own a piece of our past and all own the responsibility to learn from it so we can truly live in a free and just society.”
While conservatives often crow loudly about freedom and individual liberties, they seem to want no part in discussing freedoms and liberties that were stripped from Native Americans over the course of two centuries. The Indian boarding school discussion evidently makes some conservatives, like Andrews, uncomfortable.
See also:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/canada-residential-schools/
-
Our enemies reminisce their past through literature:
https://vdare.com/posts/vanity-fair-by-william-makepeace-thackeray
I finally finished reading the 1848 novel Vanity Fair. A few comments:
It’s extremely enjoyable.
...
One thing I noticed again in reading Vanity Fair about English society is that up to a certain point in the 19th century, you could get very rich in positions of authority with nobody questioning it. For example, Amelia’s brother Joseph is a tax collector for the British East India Company and has gotten very rich at it. (Obviously, the chance of dying of fever in India was quite high, which was some justification for the lavish fortunes made there.)
The English liked giving large financial rewards to people who succeeded in positions of authority. For example, John Churchill was rewarded for winning the War of the Spanish Succession with a Dukedom and the promise from Parliament of 250,000 pounds, enough to get started on building a 300,000 square-foot palace at Blenheim. About the last example I can remember of this is General Douglas Haig being granted 100,000 pounds after the Great War. After WWII, in contrast, Field Marshall Montgomery got many honors but little cash.
England had kind of a piratical culture (as illustrated in the Aubrey-Maturin novels by the incentives given Royal Navy captains to capture enemy shipping).
...
In Evelyn Waugh‘s novels, every young man of fashion owes a fortune to his tailor but is putting off the day he’ll have to go butter up his disapproving father to get him to pay off his tailor.
It seems as if tailors and landlords in pre-WWII England had to stay up on society gossip over whether their customers and tenants still had good prospects of inheriting fortunes someday or whether they had fallen out of favor with their rich elderly relatives. Becky Sharp and her husband, a baronet’s son, live like lords on debt for a number of years despite little income beside what Becky’s husband can win as a poolshark and cardsharper. But small businessmen were willing to bet that their knowledge of the Crawley family inheritance dynamics was accurate enough to guesstimate that they’d eventually be bequested enough to pay off their landlord and victualers without having to flee to Europe to avoid debtor’s prison (with the accompanying ruination of their small creditors).
Life was full of interest back then.
Life (for "whites") was full of "whiteness" back then.
-
Wis. school board members dismissed book about Japanese American incarceration as being ‘unbalanced,’ parents say
The members said including the book would require perspective from the U.S. government, the parents allege.
[...]
Zielke said she reached out to two board members for a rationale and eventually had a conversation the next month with Boyer, who sits on the committee. She said that in the exchange, Boyer said adding the book — alongside the class’ existing inclusion of “Farewell to Manzanar,” a separate memoir about Japanese American incarceration during WWII — to the curriculum created an “unbalanced” account of history.
Zielke said she was told “we can’t just provide one side or the other side” before the parent pressed Boyer about the issue, demanding the board member clarify her definition of “other.”
“What she said to me was that we actually need an ‘American’ perspective,’” said Zielke, who said she pointed out that those who were incarcerated were, in fact, Americans, before the conversation grew increasingly heated.
“She clarified and said that she felt that we needed the perspective of the American government and why Japanese internment happened. And so then again, we had raised voices at this point. I told her specifically, I said, ‘The other side is racism.’”
[...]
Brett Hyde, another board member, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that he sensed board members felt that the perspective presented in Otsuka’s novel too closely mirrored that of “Farewell to Manzanar” and suggested material related to the bombing of Pearl Harbor to provide “some history as to why the citizens of Japanese descent were viewed as a threat and what was the reasoning to have them put into the internment camps.”
[...]
She said the committee took particular issue with how the book was chosen to bring a diverse perspective into the curriculum.
[...]
“At one point, Terri Boyer, in the meeting, did say, ‘How would you feel if they were only allowed to choose books by white people?’” Hapeman said.
[...]
Hapeman added that the committee’s comments in the meeting “pointed to their understanding or their belief that the fact that this book came from a diverse perspective meant that the committee that chose it was discriminating against white people.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/wisc-school-board-members-dismissed-book-japanese-american-incarcerati-rcna35948
Otsuka added that reading stories from a diversity of communities is a “radical act of empathy” that can only serve to benefit all students.
A genuinely radical act of empathy would involve ending the bloodlines of all those who supported putting Americans in concentration camps (and those who want to prevent books about it from being taught).
For "balance", here is the US government perspective on the matter:
The movement's first success was in 1976, when President Gerald Ford proclaimed that the internment was "wrong", and a "national mistake" which "shall never again be repeated".[225] President Ford signed a proclamation formally terminating Executive Order 9066 and apologized for the internment, stating: "We now know what we should have known then—not only was that evacuation wrong but Japanese-Americans were and are loyal Americans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans
In 1980, under the Carter administration, Congress established the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians (CWRIC) to study the matter. On February 24, 1983, the commission issued a report entitled Personal Justice Denied, condemning the internment as unjust and motivated by racism and xenophobic ideas rather than factual military necessity.[228]
In 1988, President Reagan signed the Civil Liberties Act to compensate more than 100,000 people of Japanese descent who were incarcerated in internment camps during World War II. The legislation offered a formal apology and paid out $20,000 in compensation to each surviving victim. The law won congressional approval only after a decade-long campaign by the Japanese-American community.
https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/08/09/210138278/japanese-internment-redress
... we can take a clear stand for justice and recognize that serious injustices were done to Japanese Americans during World War II.
[...]
-George H. W. Bush, 1990.
https://digital.case.edu/islandora/object/ksl%3Akk91fr96f
Mochizuki v. United States 43 Fed. Cl. 97 (1999) was a class action lawsuit brought by survivors of Japanese Latin Americans interned during World War II by the United States government. The lawsuit alleged forcible kidnapping and imprisonment. In a settlement, the government conceded it erred and allocated $5,000 each for survivor, as well as a formal apology from then-President Bill Clinton.[1][2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mochizuki_v._United_States
Almost 80 years later, California will apologize formally to Japanese Americans for its role in what became the largest single forced relocation in US history.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/17/us/california-apology-japanese-internment-trnd/index.html
By the way, in 2021, Wisconsin passed a law requiring "Holocaust education". I doubt they include National Socialist perspectives (or merely the perspectives of non-Zionist historians) on the matter. So much for "needing" to provide a "balance" of both sides. LOL.
...Or, maybe, just maybe... (This happened in Ohio).
When I was interviewing a lawmaker about her bill that would ban “divisive concepts” being taught in school, she said we should hear “both sides” of Holocaust.
She said we should hear the “German soldier” pov.
Here is my full investigation
https://twitter.com/MorganTrau/status/1545537009091051520
These WN politicians would be disappointed to learn the actual NS perspective:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/national-socialism-is-revolutionary-not-reactionary/
-
Our enemies on Calhoun:
https://www.amren.com/features/2022/07/americas-greatest-political-thinker-since-the-founders/
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:
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.)
Calhoun argued that slavery also promoted social peace and served white workers’ interests.
See?
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?)
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.
“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.
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.
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".
-
"...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. ..."
-
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
-
"We don't owe fairness to.anyone that is not our people"
Spoken like a proper tribalist.
-
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
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.
(https://www.eurocanadians.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/unnamed-4.png)
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
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:
(https://pipevet.com/pub/media/catalog/product/cache/e3fc86710873c1f6bfe347c6a9371d8d/1/2/123766.jpg)
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.
-
https://counter-currents.com/2022/06/thomas-nelson-pages-social-life-in-old-virginia-before-the-war/
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.
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.
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.
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).....
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:
(https://counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/thomasnelsonpage.jpg)
-
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
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.
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.
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:
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".
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!
-
An enemy eulogy:
https://counter-currents.com/2022/05/remembering-hinton-rowan-helper/
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.”
-
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.
-
https://www.yahoo.com/news/britain-no-longer-hide-behind-110037277.html
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.
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?
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.
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/658/118/db3.jpg)
Related:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/leftists-against-progressivism/
-
What did the Renaissance-era Vatican think of colonialism?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/first-nations-members-urge-pope-160109773.html
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.
-
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
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?
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.
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.
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/09/world/europe/spain-conservatives-conquistadors.html
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?
-
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:
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
-
Our enemies clarify their position:
https://counter-currents.com/2021/09/indigenous-isnt-our-term/
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.
-
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!
-
Our enemies in their own words:
https://vdare.com/posts/the-five-hundredth-anniversary-of-the-fall-of-tenochtitlan-and-the-birth-of-mexico
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 **** the other to conceive me, am I supposed to be "respectful" to both?
-
https://us.yahoo.com/news/fox-news-host-says-native-143105140.html
Fox News host says Native American land 'wasn't stolen': 'We won this land on the battlefield'
Fortunately the Twitter commenters responded promptly:
"This money wasn't stolen, officer. It was taken at gunpoint. I won it fair and square at gunpoint, so it's mine!"
“This is my car. I didn’t steal it. I won it during the carjack”
"It wasn't robbery, it was ARMED robbery. So it's cool."
How dare you say I stole your house!
I came into your house, beat you up, I got your family sick, **** 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
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]
-
First, it was "poor White people didn't own any slaves!", and now this...
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VLC375p6SQ
-
Well, this is an interpretation I have never heard before!
https://www.yahoo.com/news/north-carolina-plantation-faces-controversy-220800419.html
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.”
-
Boris Johnson (Gentile) recites colonialist poem by racist Rudyard Kipling in Myanmar temple:
https://youtu.be/OqLIm0HOvuQ
-
Rep Wants 'Good' Parts of Slavery Be Taught in Schools
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.
-
(https://p6.storage.canalblog.com/68/55/644773/127013635.jpg)
-
https://twitter.com/Africa_Archives/status/1377596265446436868?s=19
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.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ex40gFxWYAQvp5v?format=jpg&name=900x900)
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.
-
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
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.
-
Subhuman YouTuber celebrates Western conquest of Japan because he can now watch anime ****:
https://youtu.be/_XEfrcBdgQo
-
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/
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 **** 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.
-
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
-
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/
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:
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.
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/
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.
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/
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
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:
In Cambodia, both the lords and the wives of a dead king voluntarily burnt themselves in the 15th and 16th centuries.