 |
| |
|
|
Az
|
 |
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:34
|
|
quote:
That question depends primarily one where you're standing. Africa still has not recovered from the slave trade or the colonial period. The neo-colonial period isn't looking so great either. Almost anyway you measure it, European imperialism was an unmitigated attrocity.
|
Not so. When deciding was it an atrocity or not, we must make a feasible alternative scenario for what would happen if it didn't occur.
I think it's pretty safe to assume that people would be hacking and slashing each other in Africa, Asia, and America, just as the Europeans hacked and slashed through them. Also, an interesting debate is whether the meteor rise of European sciences, which were the most ethically positive thing in the world, perhaps ever, would've been possible without it.
Was it the most ethical way to go through it? Were the people who were in charge commited to make the world a better place? for the most not. Would the world be worse place without european imperialism? I think so.
quote:
Using your logic one might make the argument that the Holocaust was good for the Jews because the survivors got Israel because of it.
|
Umm, no, but I don't think that we should look at the holocaust without the whole context of WWII. WWII's benefits... well, they're nowhere near in comparison to the destruction they created. Not much has changed for the better since before the worse, and a whole lot of things got a lot worse. I don't think that thinking about "the jews" is right. Roman Imperialism was a slave-driving empire that destroyed my people ( "my people"  It's sounds like a line from a movie), that waged war for centuries, etc. etc. It doesn't prevent it from being an extremely positive ethical phenomenon.
quote:
The decendents of the native Americans are certainly much worse off as a result of European imperialism. The ones that remain are disposessed in their own lands, stripped of their culture, even in countries where they form the majority of the populations, such as Guatemala, Peru, and Bolivia. |
It might be the case for the Native northen americans, but I am not certain if it is true for the central and southern americans. While stripped from their cultures, the standard of live of the vast majority of them turned for the better. You think that life in 3rd worldcountries is hard? It is, in comparison to our's. It isn't at in comparison to life in those countries before the modern age, and since there are much more people enjoying those improved conditions, It has a great positive effect.
quote:
India and parts of East Asia are recovering only now.
|
I didn't know that parts of East asia were high-tech information economies before imperialism. You see, That's the entire point. Without imperialism, there wouldn't be no slavery, death, epidemics, etc. but there also wouldn't be a world population of 6 billion people, information age, right of free speech, basketball, LotM movies, social security, modern medine. The supply of these things is extremely lacking in many places, but it would've been out of the question if not for imperialism. Today, there are estimated 100 million people in India, living in conditions similar to those of the west, and hundreds of millions more living in globally average conditions, with a hundreds of millions living in poverty. What would you get if you didn't have imperialism? I don't know. certainly more deseases, a much smaller population, with more people dying younger.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Rhodesia was not better of under whites than Blacks. It reached it's peak productivity under Mugabe, during the 1980s. It was a model for many other African nations. Don't make the mistake that so many stupid people do of assuming today's conditions extend backwards in history. |
And as good as it was, it was less productive and prosperous than, say, South Africa. If thats the best Africa has to offer, I'd say that they don't offer very much at all.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
Was that the "when did you first realize race was an issue" question?
Or the n-word question?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Viceroy
|
 |
tu mumbai se, mai Bombay se
Nov 2000
time: 05:34
|
|
I don't see why the colour of my skin should implicate me or you of the crimes commited by somebody else of the same colour, either today or 100 years ago.
that people hold hate towards people because of colour, is just a simple sign of there imaturity ...
From an Indian perspective, colour of skin is a very interesting thing. Being fair, is being god like .. Parents will do almost anything to ensure there children are fair, and many of the older generations still maintain that white people are there betters ..
Thankfully the younger generations do not have such a issue, but the culture still dictates, fair is best.
What is interesting though, is the use of the word Gorah. To be Gorah .. is to be fair, and you would say Gore gal karle baal .. (White cheeks, black hair) to describe a beautiful woman .. yet, in the UK asians use the term Gorah in a derogatory fasion.. in the same manor as niger (which is 'black in latin').
Indians most certainly are race concious, especially towards africans .. if you think an S.Asian family would react badly to their daughter having a white boyfriend, i can promise you, if that boyfriend was black .. It would probably result in the girl being disowned...
For an indian parent, the issue is not one of culture, not one of cast or creed (although that can be an issue in villages), but simlpy one of imagining what colour the grand children will be, and what the neighbours would say. For outsiders that may seem quite alien, and quite wrong, but in such a close knit society, where your entire life can be governed by the colour of your skin, it is no surprise that parents wish there children to find a fair partner .. much like Victorian British parents insisted on marrying people of similar or better class.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
Interesting post Viceroy. It seems to me that whites are the least race-conscious.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
Maybe because they were colonized by the brits.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Viceroy
|
|
tu mumbai se, mai Bombay se
Nov 2000
time: 05:34
|
|
I think there certainly was an impact, and the older generations attitude is shaped much by the colonial times, however, the cultural belief of white being best was something the brits exploited .. rather than caused. It just made so much sense, that in a society where fair people have the power and the influence, a white race of people, with technology far beyond there own, were gods/sent by god, and were naturally superior.
However, far from blaming the brits, I think you will find you can indeed blame the Greeks 
It was Alexanda the great, who conquered parts of northern india, and many of his soldiers took wives and stayed ... no surprise at all that South Indians are darker skinned, and northern Indians lighter ..
So Paiktis22 .. seems you beat us to it when it came to cultural assimilation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
Nice detour there but the point I think you agree with is that, to the extend it is happening and I'll take your word for it that it does, it was something external forced to them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Viceroy
|
|
tu mumbai se, mai Bombay se
Nov 2000
time: 05:34
|
|
Yes, external being greek influence. That was not ment as a detour .. it was historically correct, the greek influence on North India is quite amazing, it transformed the culture and religion, many of the Hindu gods are infact greek gods .. Durga carry's a trident !!!!
Colonialism re-inforced this I agree, but by accident rather than force. Accident of culture, because the British ruled by class .. and in India, the upper classes were infact fairer (or percieved to be).
in the last 50 years, I would say TV has polerised the issue even more, showing adverts of magical skin creams designed to make you fair, or miracle cures .. etc .. only recently has this been regulated.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
Interesting this about the Hindu gods. My knowledge only went as far as Afganistan and the Afgani tribe of Kalas which speak a language which ressembles greek very much. Actually many of the words are identical.
However, I'm not arguing who's to blame although I think you're a bit underestimating the role of the british colonial yoke, I'm stating that this was an external influence which caused this. A very abhorent external influence if judging by the result but an external neverhteless, a point I think we've already agreed upon.
Last edited by Bereta_Eder on 10-03-2004 at 03:40
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
I only read the last post posted before I posted but I don't think so. After all it's just 'poly.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
You're generalizing wildly Viceroy and only prove my point or ours if you've agreed with it. External influences produce those abhorent results you describe and they are confined to specific places and are explained by specific historical facts. Were you to come to other places you'd simply be viewed as quick and easy money.
A man from India seeing you and your brother in law and making that assumption is only a testament to the immense damage this country has received.
BTW I don't belieev mixing is the only way forward simply because the only way is already here for the people who I don't know are born that way where they think that everyone's just human. A ridiculously self proving phrase if anything.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-03-2004 22:59
|