[Tainari88]

The rules of history are called historiography.

I was trying to make you aware of them through example.

Late, I spent many years in archaeology. Digging through the garbage remains of old and died out civvies from many different cultures. Studying artifacts and key elements of human culture. Why is this important? Because humans think they are unique and each of these empires thinks their destiny is to rule the world forever. No such thing as forever rule. There is only change and the passing of time.

Can you control all the elements in the world? Humanity thinks it can. It can't even fix some basics. Like clean uncontaminated water for everyone. That one accomplishment alone would make this world enormously better. But instead of dealing with something so simple and critical? All of the resources are often wasted on sheer SHIT. How is sending Netanyahu more bombs and ammo going to create peace in the Middle East?

Why are the English eating Tikka Masala as their national dish when they were bringing the light of civilization to India? Lol.

It is foolish. Stop trying to justify what is unjustifiable. Do you know how many things need to get done quickly to avoid disaster? In the next century? A lot.

Yet, here we are, still insisting on dominating the world and appropriating the human cultural legacies that all have contributed to over the thousands of years we have been traveling around on this globe in boats and ships, trains and planes, automobiles and flying machines...all for what? To kill the source of all our knowledge? It is each other.

Got to stop with the stupid factor at some point.

How many years has the USA been engaged in wars? Too many years. Trillions spent in wars. When if all those resources had been allocated to eradicating poverty, hunger, and getting people treated with medicine and sheltered and educated? How many people could dedicate their time to solving serious problems in the world instead of scrambling for survival and dying like flies in useless wars meant to help a handful of ego driven maniacs?

It sickens me at times.

Sometimes I just never want to write anymore at all in this forum. Full of people justifying killing, war and domination. It never occurs to them how hard it is to give birth to babies, raise them up and feed them and nurture them and hope for their futures...all for an egomaniac to go and press a fucking button and destroy every woman's pain and sacrifice in the blink of an eye.

If you are a father and you are Late. And you are ill darling and have a fleeting existence....why not appreciate what you were able to do for LIFE and not DEATH.

I am not a liberal because I just can't deal with the premise of capitalism. Profit and constant infinite growth does not have a future in a planet and a place that does have limits.

It has to be modified or scrapped totally. I do not care about how that gets done. But someone has to start dealing with getting the clean air and clean water done.

You need good fruit to eat and vegetables and care Late. My mother had cancer. I got really FURIOUS when I found out someone in her household was eating her expensive items and special cancer fighting foods. Like a selfish asshole that person did not care he was taking the food out of her mouth so she could heal.

I wanted to fucking KILL that person. I was driving 14 hours to make sure I beat him to the fucking ground.

Imagine leaders doing that to the most vulnerable people on Earth.

What are they in office to accomplish? Making people live or making sure people die before their time? That is what I would like to know. ¿Qué estan haciendo por su gente y su pueblo? Nada...then get the hell out of the way and let someone who does do something productive for their people take over.

That is logic in action. Historiagrafía.

[QatzelOk]

The British (like all colonizers do), will exploit the local population by cutting deals with the locals who have power/influence. Outsource their power basically (with conditions, like don't fuck with the crown). Not too different from how Putin's Russia operates actually. It's a kind of mafia protection racket basically.

It takes two to tango, in that, the British could never place a soldier on every street corner. Hence their need to recruit locals as collaborators...

"British = evil", while not false, isn't the whole explanation...

Thank you for explaining what you meant by "it takes two to tango."

But this doesn't absolve Britain (or the West) from its world-destroying crimes.

If the CIA uses collaborators (through extortion), this doesn't make them less evil.

And your reference to "Putin's Russia" is pure trend-following - using our current newsfeed to "prove" something is very weak methodology.

[Rancid]

But this doesn't absolve Britain (or the West) from its world-destroying crimes.

agree

If the CIA uses collaborators (through extortion), this doesn't make them less evil.

And your reference to "Putin's Russia" is pure trend-following - using our current newsfeed to "prove" something is very weak methodology.

If you cannot see how this is all the same. Then it is your ideology (not methodology) that is weak. You are not as anti-imperialist, as you like to claim.

[QatzelOk]

If you cannot see how this is all the same. Then it is your ideology (not methodology) that is weak. You are not as anti-imperialist, as you like to claim.

You accused Putin of running a corrupt mafia-run state, while living in a country poised to chose between two mafia-funded geriatrics. This means that YOU really can't see the forest for the tree they showed you on CNN.

[late]

You accused Putin of running a corrupt mafia-run state

while living in a country poised to chose between two mafia-funded geriatrics.

This means that YOU really can't see the forest for the tree they showed you on CNN.

That's a fact, not an accusation.

Accuracy counts, and you don't have that.

You're projecting. You can't see the forest for the chip on your shoulder..

[QatzelOk]

...the chip on your shoulder..

Yes, the OP monologue was intended for people who have chipless shoulders.

"Oh the queen wasn't perfect." haha

"Locals should get to name things themselves." yuck yuck yuck

These are the kind of lukewarm "progressive" memes that even a slave-owning klan member could probably get behind.

A chipless-shouldered slave-owning klan member.

[late]

Yes, the OP monologue was intended for people who have chipless shoulders.

"Oh the queen wasn't perfect." haha

"Locals should get to name things themselves." yuck yuck yuck

These are the kind of lukewarm "progressive" memes that even a slave-owning klan member could probably get behind.

A chipless-shouldered slave-owning klan member.

Even in the 1800s, Maine only had a trivial number of slaves. In fact, we were the destination of the underground movement helping escaped slaves.

We had a handful of KKK members try to establish themselves in Maine, in the early 1900s, they were told they were not welcome.

But a heartfelt thanks for making me look good.

[QatzelOk]

Even in the 1800s, Maine only had a trivial number of slaves...

Like Canada, and neither Maine nor Canada had cotton or sugar plantations.

And this is why we didn't have plantation slaves.

There is no other reason.

And the queen... isn't really perfect.

[Rich]

Like Canada, and neither Maine nor Canada had cotton or sugar plantations.

And this is why we didn't have plantation slaves.

Well at the time I believe it was more the lack of tobacco and sugar plantations rather than cotton.

For Lincoln slavery was a fundamental moral issue. In his mind northerners were not getting their share of the profits and this was immoral. He was quite clear about this, that he didn't mean to abolish slavery just make Yankees richer. This is why they wanted big tariffs to force southerns to spend their incomes on over priced expensive northern manufacturers, produced by lazy, inefficient, incompetent Yankees.

[QatzelOk]

Well at the time I believe it was more the lack of tobacco and sugar plantations rather than cotton.

For Lincoln slavery was a fundamental moral issue. In his mind northerners were not getting their share of the profits and this was immoral. He was quite clear about this, that he didn't mean to abolish slavery just make Yankees richer. This is why they wanted big tariffs to force southerns to spend their incomes on over priced expensive northern manufacturers, produced by lazy, inefficient, incompetent Yankees.

Yes, it was Lincoln who "freed the slaves" in order to create the Buffalo Soldiers who would genocide and ethnic-cleanse their way west, opening up more land for settler-colonialists.

Like the queen, Lincoln wasn't perfect.

[Tainari88]

Yes, it was Lincoln who "freed the slaves" in order to create the Buffalo Soldiers who would genocide and ethnic-cleanse their way west, opening up more land for settler-colonialists.

Like the queen, Lincoln wasn't perfect.

I wish more people would study the leaders they venerate so much with a critical eye. Very few or I would venture to say none of them ever were all good or all bad. Something good they had to do once in a while, even if they did bad shit most of the time.

Frankly, the kind of history people study are mostly whitewashed versions to please some conventional educator in a public school classroom.

I remember I was in a high school history class long ago in the USA. The teacher glossed over the Spanish American war and the conclusion was that America liberated the last colonies of Spain in the Caribbean and in the Pacific to bring civilization to the inferior. Or some such bullshit. I challenged it very well. She was a bit upset and reported me to the school principal. And when the school principal questioned me she was impressed about the amount of nuance and the amount of information I had about the Spanish American war. So she told the teacher who was teaching history, to give me extra credit and stop being so defensive.

I wonder how many administrators in the future are going to defend students that question conventional versions of history now in the US public school system eh?

Or will they burn some books and return to the days of only officially sanitized versions of history are allowed?

[QatzelOk]

...The teacher glossed over the Spanish American war and the conclusion was that America liberated the last colonies of Spain in the Caribbean and in the Pacific to bring civilization to the inferior. ...

Hey, the Great White Nations are planning on sending Kenyan troops to Haiti to bring the same kind of magic that American troops brought to Spain's last colonies a hundred years ago.

Exciting isn't it, watching history repeat itself as deadly farce.

[Tainari88]

Hey, the Great White Nations are planning on sending Kenyan troops to Haiti to bring the same kind of magic that American troops brought to Spain's last colonies a hundred years ago.

Exciting isn't it, watching history repeat itself as deadly farce.

Haiti is one of those small nations that have been punished a lot for daring to be the first nation in the Americas to have a revolution and slaughter their white slavemasters and take control of their land. In the process they burned every way of making money. The French government was very furious of losing control of their little playground. And so they forced Haiti to pay reparations to France for one hundred years. By that time the poverty was so endemic and the lack of being able to climb out of poverty was bad.

Haitians tried to install quality leadership chosen by them. But the US government intervened severely all the time. I always tried to figure out why? And the reason is that the idea of having these tiny islands decide their own destinies in the world is too much for them to accept. It gives a bad example to the rest of them. The other nations the US government needs to control well. Hell, if Haiti can kick the French and the Americans out, and have a successfully run nation by a bunch of black ex slaves? All our theories about why we need to keep running things exclusively is moot. Can't allow them to be successful. Burden them and make it impossible to have an orderly and well funded government. End of the story.

Now Haiti is a mess of anarchy, burning crap in the street, gang warfare and lack of resources. Burned and slashed agriculture and mass emigration.

But it has produced some of the greatest people Q.

Some of the finest artists, scientists and thinkers. So I think it is important to never judge a nation by its circumstances only. I think the best thing to do is always allow an opening for improvement.

It won't happen with the horrors of intervention. By France, by the Spanish crown, by the Dominican-Haitian wars, by US military and economic interventions.

The Haitian Revolution created a deep fear in the Southern states at the time. The thought of white plantation slaveowners being killed in their own homes by angry mobs of Black slaves sick of being oppressed freaked them out.

Nat Turner was feared tremendously. All of them knew what they did was morally wrong on some level. They just normalized the abuse. Justified it with racist beliefs and baptized it with patronizing forms of Christianity that had zero real action behind it. For them treating the slaves like equals, giving them their freedom and sharing their wealth with their fellow people on the same land? Hell no. They might believe in Christ but it was lip service. Only.

[QatzelOk]

...The French government was very furious of losing control of their little playground. And so they forced Haiti to pay reparations to France for one hundred years.

Yes, the French - right after their revolution that said that all men were equal - forced Haitians to buy their own bodies back from their French masters.

And our own banksters have the same level of hubris and racism against the non-rich who they rob with backroom deals every day.

Haitians tried to install quality leadership chosen by them. But the US government intervened severely all the time.

For rich oligarch-lead nations like the USA and France, it is important that the non-rich know their place. And thus, Haitians learned that their role is to be shot at and controlled by foreigners, and Americans learn that their job is to shoot at Haitians. If Americans become too deplorable to hurt targeted foreigners, then their oligarchs will hire other shabbos-goyim - Kenyan perhaps - to commit this atrocity.

Our oligarchs keep their own hands clean throughout. Because - you know - God is watching them and keeping records...

[FiveofSwords]

I laughed a lot listening to this:

This is what colonialism is about and imperialism. It was done brilliantly by his little skit.

What is your opinion about what he said? Do you agree with his take of it? Or not?

Britain took over India because it was more powerful than India. It isn't more complicated than that.

[Rich]

IRich keeps telling us he doesn't know much, and understands even less.

Liar!

Seems you're a pretty ignorant person you're a pretty ignorant person, This is an ignorant cretin of a comedian with his ignorant cretin audience laughing at this ignorant cretinous monologue. I make no claim to being an expert on India but I at least know a few thinigs you seem to be ignorant of.

The East India company was formed even before the union of Crowns and over a century before the Act of Union. The people of this first meeting, that he imagines from Britain would in no way have identified themselves as British.

36 seconds in he says "Those cultures could not be more diametrically opposed." Again how could someone be so stupid so cretinous, so ignorant to say such a thing. If any cultures were diametrically opposed it was the Sunni Islam of the racist, murdering raping, thieving Mughal empire and the Hindu, Sikh and Buddhist cultures of what would become the British Raj. The semi monotheism of the Church of England, with its anti idolotary mostly in name only that was actually a cultural compromise. I guess you could argue that Catholicism proved better at Pagan syncreticism and the Sunni Islam of the Mughals was less extreme than the Deobandi Islam that would start to infest the north west of the sub continent in the eighteenth century. But only the most ignorant of cretins would describe the English and the Indian cultures as diametrically opposed.

[Rich]

Anyway around 1.10 in the video this ignorant cretin seems to imagine the Europeans turned up and started issuing proclamations, as if the East India company officials or the later English /British government officials were seeking some sort of relationship with the mass of the people.For a long time most of the indigenous population of these agrarian societies probably wouldn't have even seen a European. Governance at the local level being left completely intact.

Around 1:20 "This land over here is called India" Jesus the ignorance and cretinism of this guy just beggars belief. And the cretinism and ignorance of his audience that actually think he's being clever." "India" is an English term, derived from Greek. No one, not the Mughals, not the north Indians, not the south Indians, not the Tamils not the Bengals used the term India and none of them in anyway identified themselves with the geographical area that was pre 1947 India or what is now post 1947 India.

The Liberal is a narcissist that demands not just that the whole world now must revolve around his identity fetishes, but the whole of history, The Liberal is outraged that Europeans invaded India or that they invaded Africa, but these identities that are sacralised categories for the modern liberal meant absolutely zero to the indigenous populations of the time. You get this same ignorance about Europe. A lot of people seem to think that Julius Caesar invaded France. They think that Gaul was an earlier name for France. When Caesar crossed the Rubicon, when he moved from Gaul to Italy, he was leaving what was till relatively recently part of Austria not France.

[Tainari88]

Britain took over India because it was more powerful than India. It isn't more complicated than that.

No, it took over India because Greed is a Powerful Motivator and Violence is a powerful weapon. The thing is those who practice Greed and Violence what do they get out of it in the end?

Nothing but failure.

[FiveofSwords]

No, it took over India because Greed is a Powerful Motivator and Violence is a powerful weapon. The thing is those who practice Greed and Violence what do they get out of it in the end?

Nothing but failure.

There wasn't even much violence involved in the British conquest of India. Most of it was an economic takeover and driven by the greed of Indian people. What Violence did occur was perpetrated by mercenaries in India, primarily the sikh.

[QatzelOk]

Britain took over India because it was more powerful than India. It isn't more complicated than that.

...greed of Indian people...

If you don't want to read lots of books or articles regarding the takeover of India by British colonial forces... then you will come to some very easy-to-write conclusions that take only a few words. Like you did in two of your posts in this thread. Simplified down to nonsense.

But if powerful people are always going to "take over" the less powerful, then explain why rape is a crime. Aren't physically strong people SUPPOSED TO respect the sovereignty of the less physically strong? Isn't that normal human social behavior? Doesn't it happen every day, and therefore isn't it a healthy normal way to relate to other humans?

Or was Jeffrey Dahmer doing the natural, normal thing back when he was *dominating the less strong than himself?*

► Show Spoiler

(Perhaps pofo needs a forum for Jeffrey Dahmer analogies)