[Rancid]

How do you think the US got its independence? Or conquered an entire continent and wiped out almost the entire Native population? How did the North defeat the South in the US Civil War?

If you really want to play this game, the entire history of politics is essentially "humans being brutal to each other and forcing their will at gun point". The power dynamics, means and ideological ends - plus a hundred other factors - involved in these struggles determines how we assess them.

It did actually matter whether Ho Chi Minh or the French won in Indochina, just as it mattered in Algeria, Kenya, Rhodesia, Cuba and a hundred other colonised countries. Trying to use this "you really want to say you're OK with violence" line as some kind of gotcha is unbelievably silly. Everyone but the most determined pacifist is OK with political violence at a certain point.

It's not a gotcha line, and the main point was that true self-determination is largely bullshit. The point isn't that he secretly (or not secretly) condones violence. HOwever, when people claim this sort of thing, it does try to dress things up as though it's some sort of moral high ground. Sure, it is, but that's not how things work historically.

With respect to US independence, since you guys want to keep talking about specific examples of stuff. The lie we are told is that everyone was on board (self-determination/consent). This is simply not true, a small group of people actually manipulated the shit out of the population into going along with it. Samuel Adams in particular was the key propagandist and conspiracy theorist of the revolution. Historians have largely come to agree that he stoked/setup the Boston Massacre by place different opposing groups in the same place at the same time. Basically gathering powder kegs and letting the sparks fly.

Then the victors turn around and say "It was consent (sef-determination) along!". It's bullshit. It was manipulated like hell.

History is made by a small group of people with enough means and enough intelligence on how to get enough people to join, and enough people to basically just go along and not resist. Once the dust settles, and things appear to look ok for those that are just going along. FINALLY, some start to believe in the cause retro-actively, become patriots that celebrate independence day, whatever. IN the end, they never actually self-determined shit. The other end of that, is if shit turns out no to be good, whatever government/dictator/etc. that took over will just claim consent anyway and censor anyone that disagrees, nice and easy. In any case, there wasn't really some sort of organic and real popular support. this self-determination isn't as real as people would like to think. This is why I call bullshit.

[Politics_Observer]

@Rancid

African American slaves certainly didn't win any sort of "self determination" in the aftermath of the American Revolutionary War. Neither did white non-property owners. Only white property owners were allowed to vote. You certainly didn't see any black African Americans as members of Congress in any of the paintings portraying Continental Congressional debates on the issue of declaring independence from Britain either. In the paintings, all the members of the Continental Congress that were debating independence from Britain were rich white property owners.

[Politics_Observer]

@Rancid @Juin

And GET THIS! The republicans are now blaming immigrants for the high COVID cases. This is the classic scapegoating that comes out of the tyrant's playbook. You know, Hitler scapegoating the Jews, Stalin scapegoating the kulaks (rich farmers), and the republicans scapegoating immigrants. And watching Trump, you can see he has mastered the Machiavellian principle of ruling through fear. Just look at how the republicans fear Trump. Classic tyrant and dictator wannabe. But if Trump gets back into power, he might no longer be a dictator wannabe but become a real deal dictator. He'll turn on those republicans he currently rules through fear and who act as his enablers and accomplices:

If you were to believe the ads placed on Facebook by some Republican lawmakers and candidates, the surge of coronavirus infections in the US is due to immigrants. An ad from Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso warns that "The CDC & Joe Biden are telling Americans to MASK UP but are letting THOUSANDS of COVID-19 positive illegal immigrants into our country!"

The Washington Post reported this week that the Barrasso ad, and others like it, link migrants to the pandemic -- and then direct readers to fundraising pages.

But Barrasso is not the only Republican making such misleading claims, The Post noted. GOP lawmakers from North Carolina to Texas are doing the same, including Sen. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, who claimed "thousands of unvaccinated illegal immigrants" were enjoying better health treatment than American citizens.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/13/opinions ... index.html

[AFAIK]

@Rancid What about countries that became independent after a referendum? Is South Sudanese independence legitimate? Catalan independence? Brexit? Does a vote have to be unanimous to meet your standards?

Conflict and compromise are part of the human experience and most people prefer to endure that over loneliness and solitude. Even people who choose to be stateless formed communities that required them to submit to other people's will- escaped slaves becoming pirates for example.

[Heisenberg]

It's not a gotcha line, and the main point was that true self-determination is largely bullshit.

This is only true if you define "true self-determination" in a hyper-individualist, libertarian fashion. Regardless of whether it has 100% approval at all times, Vietnam is now an independent country that controls its own affairs, rather than a French colony or a puppet state of the USA. By any reasonable definition of the term, it is self-determining.

With respect to US independence, since you guys want to keep talking about specific examples of stuff. The lie we are told is that everyone was on board (self-determination/consent). This is simply not true, a small group of people actually manipulated the shit out of the population into going along with it. Samuel Adams in particular was the key propagandist and conspiracy theorist of the revolution. Historians have largely come to agree that he stoked/setup the Boston Massacre by place different opposing groups in the same place at the same time. Basically gathering powder kegs and letting the sparks fly.

What is your point here? Of course there's manipulation and propaganda involved in politics. This is barely an observation.

History is made by a small group of people with enough means and enough intelligence on how to get enough people to join, and enough people to basically just go along and not resist. Once the dust settles, and things appear to look ok for those that are just going along. FINALLY, some start to believe in the cause retro-actively, become patriots that celebrate independence day, whatever. IN the end, they never actually self-determined shit. The other end of that, is if shit turns out no to be good, whatever government/dictator/etc. that took over will just claim consent anyway and censor anyone that disagrees, nice and easy. In any case, there wasn't really some sort of organic and real popular support. this self-determination isn't as real as people would like to think. This is why I call bullshit.

I'm sorry, but you really need to read more history, particularly when it comes to anti-colonial struggles. Look at the history of the Indian or Algerian struggles for independence, for example, and tell me with a straight face that most people weren't on board with it and only took on the cause retroactively. It's a ridiculous claim on its face - not to mention incredibly patronising.

[Patrickov]

@Heisenberg

I have to say the independence of India or Algeria seem to bring them no real good other than a false sense of national pride.

In fact, apart from the democracy, India very much behaves like China most of the time, even with all the dystopic legislations.
And we all know that the hygiene of the Ganges never get anywhere good.

For Algeria... well, even if not talking about the civil war, would Zinedine Zidane prosper if his ancestors chose to stay in Algeria?

[Heisenberg]

I have to say the independence of India or Algeria seem to bring them no real good other than a false sense of national pride.

Do you have any self-respect at all? I've genuinely never seen someone from a formerly colonised country so openly pining for colonialism. It's fucking pathetic.

[Patrickov]

Do you have any self-respect at all? I've genuinely never seen someone from a formerly colonised country so openly pining for colonialism.

When is "respect" of people of the same race as oneself (Chinese in my case) equivalent to "self-respect"?

What's wrong of respecting people who respect their subjects and trying their best to build and maintain a good system (i.e. Anglo-Saxons)?

It's so crystal clear that the Chinese nowadays are either too incompetent or too fucking arrogant to deserve any respect. Corruption from Communists are definitely one of the most important reasons, but without the fucking stupid national pride they would not have enabled the Communist takeover in the first place.

And you, blaming others for legitimately criticizing their own country's incompetency, is the "fucking pathetic" scum here. Not me.

[Rugoz]

I'm sorry, but you really need to read more history, particularly when it comes to anti-colonial struggles. Look at the history of the Indian or Algerian struggles for independence, for example, and tell me with a straight face that most people weren't on board with it and only took on the cause retroactively. It's a ridiculous claim on its face - not to mention incredibly patronising.

Is it ridiculous though? Nationalism is something those movements copied from the West and national identities had to be established first. Not sure most people were really "on board" in that sense.

[Heisenberg]

What's wrong of respecting people who respect their subjects and trying their best to build and maintain a good system (i.e. Anglo-Saxons)?

Yes, if only the millions and millions of people who suffered under the British Empire would be more grateful for benevolent Anglo-Saxon leadership.

And you, blaming others for legitimately criticizing their own country's incompetency, is the "fucking pathetic" scum here. Not me.

I'm sorry, who is "legitimately criticizing their own country's incompetency" here? Did I miss you suddenly becoming Indian and/or Algerian?

[AFAIK]

I have to say the independence of India or Algeria seem to bring them no real good other than a false sense of national pride.

What a historical nonsense. Millions starved in colonial India whilst the British stole their food.

Do you miss having Chris Patten's boot on your neck that much?

[Heisenberg]

What a historical nonsense. Millions starved in colonial India whilst the British stole their food.

When the redcoats were firing sepoys out of cannons in 1857, it was for their own good. Character building, stiff upper lip, and all that.

[AFAIK]

Reading Patrickov's posts is like watching a PragerU video.

[Rugoz]

What a historical nonsense. Millions starved in colonial India whilst the British stole their food.

Being starved by domestic rulers isn't necessarily preferable.

In any case, the British had different objectives in Hong Kong and Singapore than in India. Not surprisingly Patrickov's attitude towards British imperialism is different.

[Rancid]

@Rancid What about countries that became independent after a referendum? Is South Sudanese independence legitimate? Catalan independence? Brexit? Does a vote have to be unanimous to meet your standards?

It's not really about if things are legitimate or not. They just are what they are. No, a vote doesn't have to be unanimous either. That's besides the point.

What we should not assume is that all regime change or independence is always the result of mass consent. That's also not to say that there's never mass consent either.

This is only true if you define "true self-determination" in a hyper-individualist, libertarian fashion. Regardless of whether it has 100% approval at all times, Vietnam is now an independent country that controls its own affairs, rather than a French colony or a puppet state of the USA. By any reasonable definition of the term, it is self-determining.


What is your point here? Of course there's manipulation and propaganda involved in politics. This is barely an observation.


I'm sorry, but you really need to read more history, particularly when it comes to anti-colonial struggles. Look at the history of the Indian or Algerian struggles for independence, for example, and tell me with a straight face that most people weren't on board with it and only took on the cause retroactively. It's a ridiculous claim on its face - not to mention incredibly patronising.

Sure, there are cases where you get more people on board with certain ideas/movements. That's not always true, or rather, shouldn't not be assumed when some sort of revolution/takeover regime change happens.

These threads have a habit of meandering. What's the point?

The original point is that saying China has the right to self-determine is a bullshit statement. They are not under threat of invasion or occupation. In fact, they threaten invasion of others like Taiwan which apparently doesn't have the right to self-determination? They meddle in the affairs of the maldives and sri lanka. THey engage in debt trap diplomacy. To try and sweep this away as "self-determination" is pure bullshit.

[Patrickov]

Reading Patrickov's posts is like watching a PragerU video.

Ironically I am very irritated against content farm or propagandic videos. You can see that I almost never quote them in my posts.

[Patrickov]

Yes, if only the millions and millions of people who suffered under the British Empire would be more grateful for benevolent Anglo-Saxon leadership.

Anglo-Saxons did not achieve that state from day one though. What I want to say is that they have evolved to the superior position they are in now, while some (if not most) of those opposing them either don't have the capability or the willingness to become like them, or both.

I'm sorry, who is "legitimately criticizing their own country's incompetency" here? Did I miss you suddenly becoming Indian and/or Algerian?

The moment you start slandering me, the topic is moved from simply about India or Algeria, and apparently you are fully aware of where I come from and what countries I am talking about.

You changed the scope and you now blame me for your own fault.