British Colonialism better than French/German etc......

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
gaffo
Posts: 2354
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: British Colonialism better than French/German etc......

Post by gaffo » Sun Feb 17, 2019 1:38 am

Age wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 1:26 am
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 12:39 am
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 11:35 am


You are right, there is not a lot you can do about it. But, do you think that you would you be reacting and behaving the same way as you are now?
If Veg is a Universal Humist - as i am, then i think she would.
How do you define 'Universal Humist'?
We are All the Same.

regardless of national origin, race, age or sex..........back to at least 100,000 yrs (prob more like 1/2 million IMO).

that if one is was born as a Kiosan 100,000 yrs ago and was transported to the future to American and lived my life experiences - would end up being ME.

that is my understanding of what it is to affirm the concept of universal humanism (humanity).


i.e. the "spirit" (I'm an Atheist - lol), conscience of all human beings is the SAME.


thanks for reply Sir.

gaffo
Posts: 2354
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: British Colonialism better than French/German etc......

Post by gaffo » Sun Feb 17, 2019 1:46 am

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 2:34 am


As for the Chomsky thing ... I really don't get
never understood why he is held to such esteam outside of his perview of lignustics.


there is many more wise and thoughful than him.

per israel, finkelstien, levy, come to mind.

gaffo
Posts: 2354
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: British Colonialism better than French/German etc......

Post by gaffo » Sun Feb 17, 2019 1:47 am

Greta wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 4:04 am
I have to say that my impression was that the Brits was were brutal, but less so than the Spaniards, Dutch and Portuguese. Not sure if that's how things are reported in the Anglosphere or if it was the case.
that is my general view of the matter.

User avatar
Gary Childress
Posts: 1249
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: USA of the UN

Re: British Colonialism better than French/German etc......

Post by Gary Childress » Sun Feb 17, 2019 1:51 am

Age wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 1:24 am
Gary Childress wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 11:56 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 11:28 pm


What do you mean by making progress above? Or,

How do you define progress?
Technologically they're living an archaic lifestyle in the jungle in a manner similar to their distant Neolithic ancestors of thousands of years ago. If they have something made of plastic or even metal it's because they got it from someone outside of their society. Would you call that "progress"? I call it stagnation to the extreme.
What I call "progress" does not matter. I am just clarifying what you meant when you wrote; they don't seem to be making progress at all.

Now correct me if I am wrong, but all you are saying is that only when new things are being invented and created then that is 'progress'?

If yes, then that is fine.
If no, then can you elaborate further?

If it is yes, but from inventing and creating new things a species eventually ends up wiping itself out to extinction, and that is called or known as "progress", then so be it.

If, however, a species can last for thousands or millions of years longer just because it "stagnates to the extreme", then so be it also.

Some might say that 'stagnation' is a better way of living then 'progress' is. 'Progress' is a relative term, which can mean different things to different people.

However, what might be a even better of living is finding middle ground between the two. That is, living with what a species already has, and inventing and creating new things that do NOT take from or destroy what that species NEED in order to keep on living and surviving, and just being happy and content with that?
Well, yes. They haven't invented or created much of anything substantially new in thousands of years. I would call that lack of progress (at least in comparative terms).

User avatar
Gary Childress
Posts: 1249
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: USA of the UN

Re: British Colonialism better than French/German etc......

Post by Gary Childress » Sun Feb 17, 2019 2:43 am

Age wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 1:24 am
Some might say that 'stagnation' is a better way of living then 'progress' is. 'Progress' is a relative term, which can mean different things to different people.
We're not talking a weekend camping trip, boss. We're talking living your whole life without running potable water, sewers, hospitals, or any of that stuff. Their way of life and land usage probably couldn't sustain a world population of even half the current one. "Stagnation" isn't a better way of living if your people are mostly dying.

gaffo
Posts: 2354
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: British Colonialism better than French/German etc......

Post by gaffo » Sun Feb 17, 2019 2:51 am

Gary Childress wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 2:43 am
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 1:24 am
Some might say that 'stagnation' is a better way of living then 'progress' is. 'Progress' is a relative term, which can mean different things to different people.
We're not talking a weekend camping trip, boss. We're talking living your whole life without running potable water, sewers, hospitals, or any of that stuff. Their way of life and land usage probably couldn't sustain a world population of even half the current one. "Stagnation" isn't a better way of living if your people are mostly dying.
yep.

Age
Posts: 2317
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: British Colonialism better than French/German etc......

Post by Age » Sun Feb 17, 2019 2:59 am

gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 12:45 am
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 1:54 pm


What does "a grown bias affirming Enlightment concepts of Rule of Law" mean?
I'm saying i was brought up as an american - valuing "western ideals" (enlightenment concepts of Enalienable Rights)
Even the very simple words 'american' and 'western ideals' can NOT be agreed upon and accepted.

I have NO idea what you mean when you write, "brought up as an american", and "valuing western ideals".

Who/what is 'western' or what does 'western' refer to, and, what are the 'ideals' of whatever this 'western' word refers to.

Are you even able to define 'american' let alone 'western', and then relate those definitions to 'brought up as' and 'valuing' and 'ideals'?

Also, does using the word 'enlightenment' in from the words "concepts of Enalienble rights" somehow trying to infer a superior or better form of "enalienable" rights? And, how do you define 'enalienable rights'?

OF COURSE I have a conception of what you are referring to, but to just show a point I ask these clarifying questions. That point is, until you, human beings, decide upon, agree, and accept 'THAT' what you are actually talking about, then you will continue on in this confused state as you are now and have been for millenia.

To highlight this issue of clarification further, I ask clarifying questions in direct relationship to what a person specifically writes/says. What can be witnessed is that person is nearly always unable to clarify their OWN distinct point of view. They do NOT have an accepted and agreed upon view that FITS with all of their other viewpoints. A person is unable to write some thing down, which does not clash with their own other views, let alone write some thing down that is in agreement with and accepted with and by others.

To be able to better explain what one is saying they have to first be able to clearly define EVERY word that they mention and have that definition fit with the other words and definitions they use. To be able to form and SEE a picture of things, clarity is needed. Clarity comes from ALL perspectives, and not just from one's own.
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 12:45 am
I'm an Athiest, so do not view those rights as give to me by "god/s" - but affirm the concept of those rights is "good" per all living on Earth.
You are free to BELIEVE whatever you want to BELIEVE, and, to have a concept of "good" as any way you want it to be.

But you are only looking from one perspective.
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 12:45 am
as affirm the right to life for them and me..............
So, from your perspective, does the one who murders one or millions, and/or serially rapes children and/or adults, have the EXACT same right to life as you do?

The "rule of law" may say otherwise.
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 12:45 am
and the concept of a Rule of Law ( the social "order" that defends that "right to life/liberty/happiness-property).
Are you aware there is NO actual "Rule of Law" as human beings are always changing things here?

The 'concept of a rule of law', that is that social "order" that defends that 'right to life', et cetera, at the moment, does NOT exist at all, or some might say in any way, shape, nor form , when this is written.

What can be "rule of law" one day is NOT the next. There is even a parcel of land that has been given the name of "united states" however each individual state has its OWN 'rule of law', which actually defeats the term 'united' in the phrase 'united states' by the way, but the point is the concept of rule of law is to subjective, at the moment. This subjectivity happens in just one country and culture, let alone the 'rule of law' of ALL the other places and peoples on earth as one. Even within one human being there is NO 'rule of law' because human beings, individually, are so confused about what is actually meant to be right and good.

What is the concept of a 'Rule of Law' that you personally have?

Do you think EVERY other person would have the exact same 'concept'?

When the 'right to life' for absolutely EVERY person, no matter what they do, is accepted by and agreed upon by EVERY one, then what the actual 'Rule of Lore' IS, can be defined, agreed upon, and accepted. Then SEEING and KNOWING how the concept of a Rule for a Lore could and would work for EVERY one, and then that will SHOW things much clearer and with much more clarity than any thing being proposed hitherto, when this is written. Until the 'right to life' for EVERY one is accepted, the "law makers" of some countries do NOT upheld the 'right to life' at all. In fact they insist that some must die, even if it is just because they have a different view than the law makers do.

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1779
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: British Colonialism better than French/German etc......

Post by FlashDangerpants » Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:03 am

gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 1:47 am
Greta wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 4:04 am
I have to say that my impression was that the Brits was were brutal, but less so than the Spaniards, Dutch and Portuguese. Not sure if that's how things are reported in the Anglosphere or if it was the case.
that is my general view of the matter.
Well you see, when people think of all the stuff the British invented, they go to steam engines, jet engines, programmable computers and all that other brainiac stuff our ancestors did. But there was another dude called Basil Clarke who invented the Public relations industry, he was a Brit too. We're sneaky like that, and thus people are somehow less hostile towards us when we steal from them than to others.

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1779
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: British Colonialism better than French/German etc......

Post by FlashDangerpants » Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:06 am

Age wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 2:59 am
You are free to BELIEVE whatever you want to BELIEVE, and, to have a concept of "good" as any way you want it to be.
Your abuses of CAPS LOCK and "scare quotes" amount to an indictable CRIME against "keyboards".

Age
Posts: 2317
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: British Colonialism better than French/German etc......

Post by Age » Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:07 am

gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 12:39 am
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 11:35 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 11:00 am


It has happened, and there's not a heck of a lot I can do about it.
You are right, there is not a lot you can do about it. But, do you think that you would you be reacting and behaving the same way as you are now?
If Veg is a Universal Humist - as i am, then i think she would.
Okay.

Now I have no idea what rules, religion, and/or culture you or veg live with, are under, and follow but let us say that it is not an islamic culture you adhere to now. Would you and veg just accept that the peoples from other lands who just came to live "here" (wherever you and veg now live) imposed THEIR rules and threatened you with punishment and/or death if you did not follow and adhere to those rules, in other words changed just about every thing you once knew as your "home"?

Do you really believe that you and veg would be reacting and behaving the same way as you are now if that happened to you and your home/s?

gaffo
Posts: 2354
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: British Colonialism better than French/German etc......

Post by gaffo » Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:13 am

Age wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 2:59 am
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 12:45 am
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 1:54 pm


What does "a grown bias affirming Enlightment concepts of Rule of Law" mean?
I'm saying i was brought up as an american - valuing "western ideals" (enlightenment concepts of Enalienable Rights)
Even the very simple words 'american' and 'western ideals' can NOT be agreed upon and accepted.

I have NO idea what you mean when you write, "brought up as an american", and "valuing western ideals".

Who/what is 'western' or what does 'western' refer to, and, what are the 'ideals' of whatever this 'western' word refers to.

Are you even able to define 'american' let alone 'western', and then relate those definitions to 'brought up as' and 'valuing' and 'ideals'?

Also, does using the word 'enlightenment' in from the words "concepts of Enalienble rights" somehow trying to infer a superior or better form of "enalienable" rights? And, how do you define 'enalienable rights'?

OF COURSE I have a conception of what you are referring to, but to just show a point I ask these clarifying questions. That point is, until you, human beings, decide upon, agree, and accept 'THAT' what you are actually talking about, then you will continue on in this confused state as you are now and have been for millenia.

To highlight this issue of clarification further, I ask clarifying questions in direct relationship to what a person specifically writes/says. What can be witnessed is that person is nearly always unable to clarify their OWN distinct point of view. They do NOT have an accepted and agreed upon view that FITS with all of their other viewpoints. A person is unable to write some thing down, which does not clash with their own other views, let alone write some thing down that is in agreement with and accepted with and by others.

To be able to better explain what one is saying they have to first be able to clearly define EVERY word that they mention and have that definition fit with the other words and definitions they use. To be able to form and SEE a picture of things, clarity is needed. Clarity comes from ALL perspectives, and not just from one's own.
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 12:45 am
I'm an Athiest, so do not view those rights as give to me by "god/s" - but affirm the concept of those rights is "good" per all living on Earth.
You are free to BELIEVE whatever you want to BELIEVE, and, to have a concept of "good" as any way you want it to be.

But you are only looking from one perspective.
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 12:45 am
as affirm the right to life for them and me..............
So, from your perspective, does the one who murders one or millions, and/or serially rapes children and/or adults, have the EXACT same right to life as you do?

The "rule of law" may say otherwise.
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 12:45 am
and the concept of a Rule of Law ( the social "order" that defends that "right to life/liberty/happiness-property).
Are you aware there is NO actual "Rule of Law" as human beings are always changing things here?

The 'concept of a rule of law', that is that social "order" that defends that 'right to life', et cetera, at the moment, does NOT exist at all, or some might say in any way, shape, nor form , when this is written.

What can be "rule of law" one day is NOT the next. There is even a parcel of land that has been given the name of "united states" however each individual state has its OWN 'rule of law', which actually defeats the term 'united' in the phrase 'united states' by the way, but the point is the concept of rule of law is to subjective, at the moment. This subjectivity happens in just one country and culture, let alone the 'rule of law' of ALL the other places and peoples on earth as one. Even within one human being there is NO 'rule of law' because human beings, individually, are so confused about what is actually meant to be right and good.

What is the concept of a 'Rule of Law' that you personally have?

Do you think EVERY other person would have the exact same 'concept'?

When the 'right to life' for absolutely EVERY person, no matter what they do, is accepted by and agreed upon by EVERY one, then what the actual 'Rule of Lore' IS, can be defined, agreed upon, and accepted. Then SEEING and KNOWING how the concept of a Rule for a Lore could and would work for EVERY one, and then that will SHOW things much clearer and with much more clarity than any thing being proposed hitherto, when this is written. Until the 'right to life' for EVERY one is accepted, the "law makers" of some countries do NOT upheld the 'right to life' at all. In fact they insist that some must die, even if it is just because they have a different view than the law makers do.

you seem to like to lecture more than discuss. so ignoring most your above, will address one particular.

you view of "rule of law" as a subjective thing depending upon time and place.

dissagree, rule of law is timeless and the same thing a one's conscience - just implemented via "the state"/higher tribal authority.

and so there is "right" and "wrong" - via conscience, either the tribe/state affirms one's inborn conscience or opposes it (the latter of course would be Germany 1933-1945 - where individual germans still had a conscience, but defered it/ignored it/had it but feared for their personal life/etc,,,,,,,,and the state constructed a "rule of law" counter to conscience).

Age
Posts: 2317
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: British Colonialism better than French/German etc......

Post by Age » Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:17 am

gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 12:57 am
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 1:54 pm

Just observe any people who have NOT been influenced from or by people from other lands. That is the ideal way of life.

that is a false narrative/assumption on your part. "noble savage"
It is NOT a false narrative/assumption on my part at all. What do you think is false and what do you think I am saying/assuming.

What do you mean when you say "noble savage"? If you are really interested, then you will find that YOUR "noble savage" probably means NOTHING in regards to what I am talking about. If you STOPPED assuming that you already know what I am talking about, then you may see things differently. We will just have to wait and SEE?

The actual term "noble savage" also can be an attempt at trying to "justify" one's or "other's" own actions.
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 12:57 am
there are noble's and savages in all lands/peoples.
What do you mean? Who do you see as "noble's" and who do you see are "savages"?
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 12:57 am
sometimes and sometimes not "people of other lands" offer the better view. and sometime they do not.
A truly 'better view' is one that is only seen from EVERY one. What you are saying is only a perceived to be better view.

where they come from is not relivent, what is in their heart is.
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 12:57 am
as for the assmuption of "if evil europeans stayed out of NW" -
I NEVER assumed no such thing, so this has NOTHING to do with me.
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 12:57 am
just know that the Aztecs were blood thirsty, their society enslaved thier neighbors, and why the Spanish were able to conquer them. Note that had the Aztecs not been dicks they would have defeated the Spainish (who were not good - bett then the Aztecs? - maybe or not/ we can discuss this (not "outsiders bad, native good mantra)


Aztecs were dicks and with the help of their neighborhood enslaved tribes which sided with the Spanish were defeated!

good in my book.

I don't cry for the lost empire of the Spanish nor do i the lost Aztec empire.
All completely moot, in regards to what I talk about.

gaffo
Posts: 2354
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: British Colonialism better than French/German etc......

Post by gaffo » Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:19 am

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:03 am
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 1:47 am
Greta wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 4:04 am
I have to say that my impression was that the Brits was were brutal, but less so than the Spaniards, Dutch and Portuguese. Not sure if that's how things are reported in the Anglosphere or if it was the case.
that is my general view of the matter.
Well you see, when people think of all the stuff the British invented, they go to steam engines, jet engines, programmable computers and all that other brainiac stuff our ancestors did. But there was another dude called Basil Clarke who invented the Public relations industry, he was a Brit too. We're sneaky like that, and thus people are somehow less hostile towards us when we steal from them than to others.
Germans invented the Jet Engine BTW.

hows that Brexit thing going? (love James O'Brian BTW).

i love hearing all those Brexit (same as my Trumpers- ignorant asshats) troglodites talking about "germans this and that" and how "we won the war (ignoring that the Russians and Americans won that war - russian would have won it alone even without american showing up BTW - "we" (I'm American BTW) showed up in 44 to prevent Russia from taking all of europe and so the "Western front in june-44) - they still ended up taking 1/2 of it though for 70 yrs).

Age
Posts: 2317
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: British Colonialism better than French/German etc......

Post by Age » Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:30 am

gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 1:10 am
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 2:01 pm

HOW? Because there was NO oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.
nonesence, there were always "oppresive restrictions" upon locals - prior to similar restrictions via colonilism.
Because you said that what I said was nonsense, that MUST MEAN that you KNOW, for sure, what I am referring to. Now, would you care to share with the readers what I am actually referring to?

How far do you go back (look at and think about) when you say things like "there was ALWAYS "oppressive restrictions" upon locals"?

A huge reason why some human beings are still confused and still looking for answers is because they compartmentalize things and do NOT look at the whole picture.
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 1:10 am
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 2:01 pm

WHY? Because there was NO oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views, like there is now under english rule of law.
again bullshit.
What part are you saying is "bullshit" now?

The part about there being oppressive restrictions imposed by the english rule of law, or, the part which you said was nonsense before, or both?

gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 1:10 am
per the local pleab - farmer, gatherer - perio to colonializm they were under Authority of the head of the trible - if that authoriy was unjust/denied liberty, then they were restricted from it no less than when/if under colonial rule from outsiders.
From YOUR view, has the authority of the head of a tribe always forced "oppressive restrictions"?

gaffo
Posts: 2354
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: British Colonialism better than French/German etc......

Post by gaffo » Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:33 am

Age wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:07 am
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 12:39 am
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 11:35 am


You are right, there is not a lot you can do about it. But, do you think that you would you be reacting and behaving the same way as you are now?
If Veg is a Universal Humist - as i am, then i think she would.
Okay.

Now I have no idea what rules, religion, and/or culture you or veg live with, are under, and follow but let us say that it is not an islamic culture you adhere to now. Would you and veg just accept that the peoples from other lands who just came to live "here" (wherever you and veg now live) imposed THEIR rules and threatened you with punishment and/or death if you did not follow and adhere to those rules, in other words changed just about every thing you once knew as your "home"?

Do you really believe that you and veg would be reacting and behaving the same way as you are now if that happened to you and your home/s?
I'm not veg nor flash, but i as a universal humanist that is biased in beleiving in Western Culture (courts/etc states rule of law based upon enlightenment concepts as the best ones)............affirm any person of any nation/race and age as "american" (or wherever) - as long as they assimilate.

assimilation does not mean convert to christianity, nor negate thier culture - outside of any particulars (like sharia law for example) - which is not counter to western ideals.

assimilation just means to affirm western concepts of Rule of law.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests