 |
| |
|
|
Pax
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Sure it does! If you are unsuccessful, then you are not a very good imperialist.
Successful Imperialism , ought to be regarded as the model of Imperialism, rather than the ones that fail.
I think Imperialism is more about the exchange rather than the withdrawal of resources. Both groups benefited greatly, except it's unfashionable to talk about Imperialism in this way.
Why is India the most populous democracy in the world?
Challenging pre-conceived notions. |
Okay,
1. Imperialism is building an Empire that your group dominates.
2. Even if the country prospered under Imperialism. Increase in GDP, more equality for the populace. It would still be wrong. Forcing your will upon someone is never right.
3. Imperialism is about sending raw resources to the mother country. Even when you have a situation in which you harvest the resources that a country was not using and raise the standard of living for the local populace, you are still doing this for your advantage not the locals advantage. You do it because you covet the resources not out of some great altruistic nature.
4. Name me a good Imperialist country and we can find there crimes against mankind.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
I'm still in.
USS SAN JUAN
USS PORTER
USS ARTHUR W. RADFORD
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Theben
|
 |
Dance Dance for the Revolution!
Jan 1970
time: 00:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
What about Missionaries? Are they motivated by materialistic concerns? I would consider them part and parcel of imperialism. |
As well you should, for they do the same. They spread their ideology with little to no concern for prevailing ideologies; either b/c they are 'inferior', or more common these days b/c they feel the need to 'save' the lost souls. Regardless, their ultimate motive is self-serving.
quote:
It depends on the population. Can it truly be said that the British dominated over India, or that the folks in India collaborated with the British? Both are partly true. I agree that much of imperialism came about from subjugation, but that the successful models of imperialism allowed for the participation rather than the subjugation of the native peoples. |
Folks in India did collaborate, b/c they saw who was in charge and wanted a bigger slice of the pie. Some also saw better methods in what the British did and wanted to copy them to help spread throughout their people.
Doesn't matter. Imperialism's ultimate motive, again, is to help the homeland. Whether or not the locals are aided or worsened by the exchange is inconsequential.
quote:
That underscores your first point. What is the motivation of Imperialism? To establish dominion? To harvest resources? If one believes one to have a duty to help less advanced nations, in this manner, than can that not be construed as an altruistic motive? |
The motive may be altruistic, but the ends haven't changed. If you kill someone for 'altruistic' reasons, isn't it still murder?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Impaler[WrG]
Ok so as to the Original topic, was wanting others to know you were black is that the reason your using the Data Angels leader as your avatar (Roze isn't it)? If so dose that mean your female as well as Morgan would seem the natural choice if your male? Or was Morgan unpalatable to you because of his Imperialistic coroporate tendencies? |
When I play SMAC, I usually play either Sven or Morgan. Sometimes the Peacekeepers or Datajack. My style of play is more suited to Sven and Morgan. The whole goal of all of these games is to conquer the world so I go with the my favorite Imperialists.
I use Roze as an avatar because I like her philosophy and she's cute.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Last Conformist
I must say I never suspected that the 'Africanus' part refered to black skin colour/race. It rather reminded me of Latin honorifics, like Scipio Africanus, so to the extent it reminded me of any race it was of Caucasoids.
I'll note it's bad Latin tho - pax being a feminine noun, "African Peace" should be pax africana.
***
I, BTW, wholeheartedly support renaming Kuciwalker to just that.
* Last Conformist brandishes "Kuciwalker Now!" poster. |
I don't speak latin. So Scipio Africanus reminds me of Africa and is masculine. I had no knowledge of whether Pax is feminine or masculine. I thought if anything peace would not be gender specific.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Last Conformist
|
 |
of Calakmul
Jul 2003
time: 06:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pax
I don't speak latin. |
To put it mildly, you're not alone.
quote:
So Scipio Africanus reminds me of Africa and is masculine. |
Well, the specific purpose of the name is to remind you of Africa, and more specifically Scipio's victories there. However, in his day, Africa meant, to a first approximation, modern Tunisia.
quote:
I had no knowledge of whether Pax is feminine or masculine. I thought if anything peace would not be gender specific. |
Indo-European gender assignments are not known for making sense. A personal favourite is German Mädchen "girl" being neuter.
The lesson being, one assumes, that the same words evoke different associations for different people.
"I am black" should, BTW, translate as niger sum into Latin. Thought you might want to know.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Last Conformist
"I am black" should, BTW, translate as niger sum into Latin. Thought you might want to know. |
Pax Niger Sum does not sound catchy to me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:36
|
|
quote:
As well you should, for they do the same. They spread their ideology with little to no concern for prevailing ideologies; either b/c they are 'inferior', or more common these days b/c they feel the need to 'save' the lost souls. Regardless, their ultimate motive is self-serving.
|
How so? The missionaries gain no benefit from conversions personally. They certainly gain plenty of strife.
quote:
Some also saw better methods in what the British did and wanted to copy them to help spread throughout their people.
|
quote:
Doesn't matter. Imperialism's ultimate motive, again, is to help the homeland. Whether or not the locals are aided or worsened by the exchange is inconsequential.
|
Ah, but I see certain real differences in the two. If Imperialism benefitted the people in India, since they liked the methods of the British, as you admit here, then how can one say that the sole, or supreme motive of Imperialism was to benefit the home country? There were other motives, and one of them was to improve the living conditions of the colonised people.
Granted, not all Imperialists held this ideal, but the British were the most successful because they included this motivation in their Imperialism.
quote:
The motive may be altruistic, but the ends haven't changed. If you kill someone for 'altruistic' reasons, isn't it still murder?
|
I think you mean that the means have not changed. The ends do not justify the means. I agree that you cannot kill someone for purely altruistic motives. Nor do I argue that the British were Imperialists for purely altruistic motives. However, it still remains that the British were successful because they treated the natives well.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
How so? The missionaries gain no benefit from conversions personally. They certainly gain plenty of strife.
Ah, but I see certain real differences in the two. If Imperialism benefitted the people in India, since they liked the methods of the British, as you admit here, then how can one say that the sole, or supreme motive of Imperialism was to benefit the home country? There were other motives, and one of them was to improve the living conditions of the colonised people.
Granted, not all Imperialists held this ideal, but the British were the most successful because they included this motivation in their Imperialism.
I think you mean that the means have not changed. The ends do not justify the means. I agree that you cannot kill someone for purely altruistic motives. Nor do I argue that the British were Imperialists for purely altruistic motives. However, it still remains that the British were successful because they treated the natives well. |
You are totally wrong. The British did not treat the natives anywhere as equal. They felt themselves superior to the non-whites. The uncivilized, the godless, the barbarians, and etc. They rationalized that it was the white mans burden to bring order to places were they saw none.
1. It's well known that missionaries were used for cultural imperialism, they were used to help pacify the natives and they also used for a scapegoat for the Europeans to send in troops to put down the barbarians who were threatening the good missionaries.
2. I am not admitting that Imperialism benefitted the people in India. They may have gotten a better deal than other people but that does not mean that it was good for them to be subjugated.
3. The British are the ones who forced the sale of opium to the Chinese. They have a long history of subjugation and destroying native cultures. You must be talking about some other British Empire.
4. To get a fuller understanding of this I suggest you read Arrow of God by China Achebe or A Grain of wheat by Ngugi wa Thiong'o. The British basically, destroyed the cultures that were already there. Replacing them with a new society with themselves at the top.
5. I don't understand how you can be anti-abortion yet condone colonialism. One of the most evil things to ever happen.
Your position on Imperialism is does not take into consideration the destruction of the Incas, The Mayans, The Aztecs, or the situation in Africa to name a few. European Imperialism ****ed up the world so there's no way you can be like "Mission Accomplished" unless that was the plan.
Last edited by Pax on 27-05-2004 at 06:42
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-05-2004 09:49
ACK!
|