[QatzelOk]

In response to the idea that colonies in fact constituted a greater cost than a gain long term, and that indeed some countries were ruined by their colonial schemes (Scotland and the Darien scheme) you had... no response.

For the businessmen who gain from colonial gold, there is no cost. All the cost is born by the state, which is born by everyone. So this is the only "explanation" I can think of for your unlikely claim that colonies cost white-colonizers more than they gain.

If colonies were so expensive, no one would bother having them. I find the "argument" that colonies are "more costly than they're worth" not even worth the time to discuss, it's so illogical. It sounds like something callous rich people say to their Haitian maids. "Oh, those colonies cost us so much, sometimes I wonder why we bother."

When suggesting something this illogical, the burden of proof is on you, not those who don't believe you.

[Smilin' Dave]

For the businessmen who gain from colonial gold, there is no cost. All the cost is born by the state, which is born by everyone. So this is the only "explanation" I can think of for your unlikely claim that colonies cost white-colonizers more than they gain.

Makes perfect sense... until you remember a lot of colonies were formed in the wake of trade being established. Consider all the trading posts established in Africa prior to any attempt to explore the interior. Even the Russian conquest of Siberia was in the footsteps of merchants who had gone before them. What this would tend to suggest is that merchants don't need the state to get the supposed benefits of 'colonies'. Since as you state they are the only ones to profit, this leads to the conclusion that your 'logical' alternative is in fact not the most logical conclusion. In fact it would suggest that rather than some comfortable simplistic mono-text of "fat cats" exploiting everyone, that maybe the state can exploit the rich for their own purposes from time to time.

Seriously, every history thread boils down to you trying to figure out how it's the fault of the rich. I suspect you are avoiding discussing Napoleon not only because you are woefully ignorant of the period, you can't find the "fat cat" angle. Speaking of Napoleon, notice how he and the revolutionary government generally tried to cut their loses on colonies? You can't have a Louisiana Purchase without the French selling the place in the first place:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Purchase
It's almost as if... they didn't see any value in their American colonies... which doesn't gell with your Hitler comparison... or your conception of colonies.

If colonies were so expensive, no one would bother having them. I find the "argument" that colonies are "more costly than they're worth" not even worth the time to discuss, it's so illogical. It sounds like something callous rich people say to their Haitian maids. "Oh, those colonies cost us so much, sometimes I wonder why we bother."

Long term and short term are different things. While you work on your logic, maybe you could work on reading comprehension. The 'master of text' ought to be able to read a short post and see basic distinctions and qualifying statements. Did Napoleon's European empire work out well for him in the long term? Or did it just make him more enemies and create more wars for him to lose resources one?

Oh, and your strawman isn't even worthy of description.

When suggesting something this illogical, the burden of proof is on you, not those who don't believe you.

For the third fucking time, the example is the Darien scheme. Here is a link since you obviously can't be bothered to look it up yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien_scheme

Hundred Years' War was a pretty big deal, and in places a lot more 'genocidey' than the Napoleonic Wars.

1. What was even remotely genocidal about the Hundred Years War... or the Napoleonic Wars for that matter?
2. In what sense is a conflict which ended in the 1400s fought by feudal lords over feudal possesions, in the same era as the Napoleonic Wars which ended in the 1800s and were fought by essentially the first modern era armies for state/ideological objectives?

And none of this even compares to the orchestrated slaughter of Slavs, Jews, Freemasons, homosexuals and the disabled.

Again, this is outside the context of the era... and I'm not comparing Napoleon and Hitler. I've actually been pretty clear that I think they have little in common. So in context my answer still seems appropriate.

[D-MITCH777]

Napoleon wanted to re-install Slavery in the French colonies ,but other than that He was one of the greatest leaders ever .He raised up from a minor nobility corsican familiy to become Emperor of France.

[Cookie Monster]

There is no use of explaining history in moral terms. And Napoleon certainly had numerous progressive contributions to the world. Certainly more than many other leaders of his time (and our time).

The problem of Napoleon was that his very existence posed a threat to all the monarchs of Europe. Even as an emperor he was never fully accepted among his "brothers". Thus often he had no option but to settle matters by means of war, which in turn only heightened his exclusion.

[QatzelOk]

There is no use of explaining history in moral terms.

You should tell that to the people who write it.

They put moral terms (my country, my god, my self interest) in every line.

[Smilin' Dave]

They put moral terms (my country, my god, my self interest) in every line.

1. Show an example of this written in say... the last five years.
2. Demonstrate how your own historical narratives are not in fact moralist tales.

[QatzelOk]

Show an example of this written in say... the last five years.

History is recorded years after it takes place.

In the meantime, it is the NEWS that provide recent (non-historical) records of what the Elite will soon have written into school texts.

"Liberating Libya and Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan and helping Haiti" is an example of the kind of faux-history that will soon pollute our books with misrepresentations that help the Elite pillage all the other classes of their surplus labor.

Likewise, Napoleon was misrepresented in his own time (in a positive way) by the business community because his ideas would empower them.

[Smilin' Dave]

On point one you are apparently unable to cite a specific example. This is contrary to a claim that it appears in every line and that this apparently goes for all writers.

Point two you didn't address, though you actually provided a very good example of your emotive style of argument in your reply:

that will soon pollute our books with misrepresentations that help the Elite pillage all the other classes of their surplus labor.

- Pollution used as a term of derision
- "our books" implies possession, tries to evoke a sense of ownership for select readers, which is to be upset by the "pollution". No doubt you would imagine yourself a defender of this owner class
- "Elite", with the capital E, where you have created an imagined organised enemy threat
- The use of the word pillage, to create the impression of theft yet more crass (never mind that defining the act as theft in the first place is a moral judgement rather than balanced commentary). Again in counterpoint to your happy little owner class that needs protection

Dismantling this sentence it almost becomes clear that you use very similar language and tactics to the supposed enemy. You would have us believe that you can liberate us from the pollution in our culture, in opposition to the threat (in your narrative the Elite) which is stereotyped with base and criminal behaviour eg. pillage. Swap a word or two and your sentence would be right at home as a product of the Nazi Party propaganda complex. Returning to the mirroring behaviour in our comparison, the Nazis justified their crimes and conspiracies by pointing to supposed similar behaviour by the outside enemy. Similar the Qatz 'machine' justifies the use of memes and other tools in presenting a biased world view on the basis that the Elite do so as well.

[QatzelOk]

Dismantling this sentence it almost becomes clear that you use very similar language and tactics to the supposed enemy.

In order to debate, I must use the same language as whatever I'm faced with.

And tactics are simply marketing techniques. Presentation is important, and so is careful word choice.

History is a sandbox for manipulative writers.

[Smilin' Dave]

In order to debate, I must use the same language as whatever I'm faced with.

Somehow you've consistently failed to mimic my style.

And tactics are simply marketing techniques. Presentation is important, and so is careful word choice.

Unfortunately the tactics your style most closely mimic are the tactics only once removed from gutter politics, which means that your message is lost. Wolfman remarked correctly recently that your involvement discredits even the most valid of causes. If you want to insist on the marketing comparison, this is probably a failure to correctly identify and understand your target market.

History is a sandbox for manipulative writers.

This remains unproven.