What all the developed countries have in common - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15105037
Julian658 wrote:
Slavery was the order of the day in "the old days". American SJWs somehow think that slavery was only an American thing. The left wing leaders, particularly black left wing leaders push the narrative of the "victimhood" 24/7 which is highly damaging to minorities. I cannot imagine what it would be like to grow up and be told I am a victim every single day. That destroys the human spirit. It creates depression, anger, lack of hope, nihilism, lack of motivation, violence, etc. At some point the only hope is to embrace the the role of the noble victim.



We've been over this 'victim' thing in the past, Julian. It's valid, because of the history of slavery and racism in this country, which obviously victimized blacks. I think the black culture tends to be *positive* in terms of boosting black children's self-esteem.

You're trying to make the black-culture recounting of history sound like a *negative* thing, when, in fact, it's how things really happened, and *everyone* is entitled to the truth about it.

Have you considered that it's the *reality* of the history of slavery and racism that has caused so much degradation to the lives of people of color, and not merely the *recounting* of it?

Remember, historical accounts are *not* the same thing as the reality itself.

Finally, this thread has included some content about *ancient slavery*, which is a different thing than *modern* slavery.
#15105040
ckaihatsu wrote:We've been over this 'victim' thing in the past, Julian. It's valid, because of the history of slavery and racism in this country, which obviously victimized blacks. I think the black culture tends to be *positive* in terms of boosting black children's self-esteem.

You're trying to make the black-culture recounting of history sound like a *negative* thing, when, in fact, it's how things really happened, and *everyone* is entitled to the truth about it.

Have you considered that it's the *reality* of the history of slavery and racism that has caused so much degradation to the lives of people of color, and not merely the *recounting* of it?

Remember, historical accounts are *not* the same thing as the reality itself.

Finally, this thread has included some content about *ancient slavery*, which is a different thing than *modern* slavery.


I do not disagree with anything above.

I simply advocate that the route to full healing requires to remember slavery as just a historical fact and not as a crouch to explain some issues that need attention in the black community. That African and Jamaican immigrants do exceptionally well in America means that they are somehow not tied down by victimhood culture. Otherwise, they are exposed to the same so-called racist obstacles. Redneck Bubba from Alabama cannot tell the difference from a Jamaican or AA. I don't think it is too much to ask to seek healing by remembering slavery as just history. We had slavery in Latin America and it is not recalled or talked about--------It is ancient history for us.
#15105051
Julian658 wrote:
I do not disagree with anything above.

I simply advocate that the route to full healing requires to remember slavery as just a historical fact and not as a crouch to explain some issues that need attention in the black community. That African and Jamaican immigrants do exceptionally well in America means that they are somehow not tied down by victimhood culture. Otherwise, they are exposed to the same so-called racist obstacles. Redneck Bubba from Alabama cannot tell the difference from a Jamaican or AA. I don't think it is too much to ask to seek healing by remembering slavery as just history.



But it's *not* 'just' history, any more than your own family lineage is 'just' history, as well.

We all grow up in, and live our adult lives in, several 'scopes', or 'scales' of reality, none of which are trivial. Why is the *wealth gap* so glaring, by race? That's a legacy of slavery and racism. Why is there such a disparity in housing, political representation, access to supermarkets, etc., in the white demographic, versus the black demographic?

You're suggesting that, going-forward, the *recounting* needs to change -- but, guess what? What you're actually suggesting is a *changing of history*, because we reach history only through *recountings*, and if the real legacies of slavery and racism are to be *ignored*, then we're actually *chipping away* at the history itself, saying that maybe slavery and racism were of another time and that they have no knock-on effects in the present day.

Should we all just *pretend* that racism is *over* and *doesn't exist* today? Is Black Lives Matter *wrong* / incorrect in some way?


Worldview Diagram

Spoiler: show
Image



---


Julian658 wrote:
We had slavery in Latin America and it is not recalled or talked about--------It is ancient history for us.



Well, here it is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Latin_America


Make photocopies and pass them out. Tell your friends. Get coffee and sit down (after COVID, of course).
#15105052
Julian658 wrote:
I do not disagree with anything above.

I simply advocate that the route to full healing requires to remember slavery as just a historical fact and not as a crouch to explain some issues that need attention in the black community. That African and Jamaican immigrants do exceptionally well in America means that they are somehow not tied down by victimhood culture. Otherwise, they are exposed to the same so-called racist obstacles. Redneck Bubba from Alabama cannot tell the difference from a Jamaican or AA. I don't think it is too much to ask to seek healing by remembering slavery as just history.



But it's *not* 'just' history, any more than your own family lineage is 'just' history, as well.

We all grow up in, and live our adult lives in, several 'scopes', or 'scales' of reality, none of which is trivial. Why is the *wealth gap* so glaring, by race? That's a legacy of slavery and racism. Why is there such a disparity in housing, political representation, access to supermarkets, etc., in the white demographic, versus the black demographic?

You're suggesting that, going-forward, the *recounting* needs to change -- but, guess what? What you're actually suggesting is a *changing of history*, because we reach history only through *recountings*, and if the real legacies of slavery and racism are to be *ignored*, then we're actually *chipping away* at the history itself, saying that maybe slavery and racism were of another time and that they have no knock-on effects in the present day.

Should we all just *pretend* that racism is *over* and *doesn't exist* today? Is Black Lives Matter *wrong* / incorrect in some way?


Worldview Diagram

Spoiler: show
Image



---


Julian658 wrote:
We had slavery in Latin America and it is not recalled or talked about--------It is ancient history for us.



Well, here it is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Latin_America


Make photocopies and pass them out. Tell your friends. Get coffee and sit down (after COVID, of course).
#15105060
wat0n wrote:What does it have to do with the evolution of Ireland's economy? It seems the immigrants benefited, not the Irish in general. Also, I don't think that immigrating into a former colony like the US is a form of colonialism, in the same way that exiling yourself in Canada circa 1973 or working in the US in 2020 are not.



The case of Turkey is a counterexample.

And again, how about Singapore? It's another counterexample.


If you want to believe that the Irish did not help the British empire and did not support it as soldiers and other helpers, feel free.

History disagrees with you.
#15105076
Pants-of-dog wrote:If you want to believe that the Irish did not help the British empire and did not support it as soldiers and other helpers, feel free.

History disagrees with you.


So what? People from other British colonies also fought for them while they were under that status. What's your point and how does it relate to Ireland's development in the 1990s?
#15105082
ckaihatsu wrote:But it's *not* 'just' history, any more than your own family lineage is 'just' history, as well.
We all grow up in, and live our adult lives in, several 'scopes', or 'scales' of reality, none of which is trivial. Why is the *wealth gap* so glaring, by race? That's a legacy of slavery and racism. Why is there such a disparity in housing, political representation, access to supermarkets, etc., in the white demographic, versus the black demographic?




First of income or wealth is different among nationalities. Some ethnic whites do better than other whites according to nation of origin. Some Latins better than other Latins according to origin. Some Asians do better than others according to origin. And lastly some blacks do way better than others according to origin.

Look at the top 10 earners in America:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_e ... old_income

By ancestry
Indian American (2016): $131,746[2]
Taiwanese American (2016): $91,221[2]
Australian American (2016): $90,930[3]
South African American (2017): $90,517[3]
Chinese American (2016): $84,764[2] [4]
Filipino American (2016): $84,620[2]
Austrian American (2016): $80,717[3]
Singaporean American (2016) $79,852[3]
Korean American (2016): $78,186[2] [5]
Japanese American (2016): $77,504[2]



Indian immigrants with relatively dark olive skin leave everyone in the dust. Only two nationalities of European origin make the top ten list.

Latins have different income according to nationality.
Cuban American: $57,000
Peruvian Americans: $52,000
Puerto Rican American: $40,000

As to why disparity? And you are quite correct in pointing that out. The reasons are clearly multifactorial and racism is just a tiny element. The socio economic problems of poor black America will be exactly the same as today after all statues, monuments, Mount Rushmore, Lincoln, Washington, and Jefferson are erased from history.

You're suggesting that, going-forward, the *recounting* needs to change -- but, guess what? What you're actually suggesting is a *changing of history*, because we reach history only through *recountings*, and if the real legacies of slavery and racism are to be *ignored*, then we're actually *chipping away* at the history itself, saying that maybe slavery and racism were of another time and that they have no knock-on effects in the present day.


The way to attack the inequality of income is to create programs that teach the poor how to copy the habits of other minorities that have massive success in America. This teaching would be given not only to poor blacks, but also to poor whites.


Should we all just *pretend* that racism is *over* and *doesn't exist* today? Is Black Lives Matter *wrong* / incorrect in some way?


Slavery is not to be ignored. However, is not supposed to be the vehicle to embrace victimhood. I would spend massive amounts of cash into teaching the poor how to be successful without preaching victimhood.

Racism is always wrong. However, we are attacking the problem incorrectly. For racism to exist we need two conditions. The oppressor must feel superior and the oppressed must feel inferior. That is why embracing the noble victim status is so devastating. America does not need minorities that are walking around as victims 24/7. IN my opinion that promotes racism. Calling a white man a supremacist promotes racism. They are certainly not the supreme race.
Last edited by Julian658 on 04 Jul 2020 18:31, edited 1 time in total.
#15105084
wat0n wrote:So what? People from other British colonies also fought for them while they were under that status. What's your point and how does it relate to Ireland's development in the 1990s?


And I asked you to support your assumption that Ireland only became a developed country in the 1990s.

When you have done so, then I will show how colonialism benefits Ireland.
#15105088
Pants-of-dog wrote:And I asked you to support your assumption that Ireland only became a developed country in the 1990s.

When you have done so, then I will show how colonialism benefits Ireland.


Why don't you just check the per capita GDP figures for both Ireland and Singapore, and compare those with the figures of developed countries at the time?
#15105089
Julian658 wrote:
As to why disparity? And you are quite correct in pointing that out. The reasons are clearly multifactorial and racism is just a tiny element. The socio economic problems of poor black America will be exactly the same as today after all statues, monuments, Mount Rushmore, Lincoln, Washington, and Jefferson are erased from history.

The way to attack the inequality of income is to create programs that teach the poor how to copy the habits of other minorities that have massive success in America. This teaching would be given not only to poor blacks, but also to poor whites.



You're *still* attached to the idea that capitalist economics reflect a kind of *meritocracy* -- like UM, incidentally -- and that those who 'work hard' are 'most deserving' of wealth, or health, or 'success', etc.

I'll use the same argument with you as I did with UM -- consider someone who has *millions of dollars*. If they simply leave those millions in a savings account at the bank, at 1% interest, those millions will receive *tens of thousands of dollars* in interest every year, and the owner will not have had to do a *single thing*, in terms of personal *work* efforts.

So the inequality of income begets a *further* inequality of income, based on *wealth ownership* alone. Your pretendings towards some kind of rustic hard-work moralism as the basis for success are *misguided*, at best, and I'm being *generous* towards your stated position.


Julian658 wrote:
Slavery is not to be ignored. However, is not supposed to be the vehicle to embrace victimhood. I would spend massive amounts of cash into teaching the poor how to be successful without preaching victimhood.



Would you likewise 'teach' Native Americans how to be successful, so that you can ignore the real history of *genocide* by the U.S. government against all native tribes in North America?

Why don't we just indict the social entity that's *responsible* for the genocide, slavery, and racism that continues to this day, the U.S. government (and all Western bourgeois governments)? Why are you trying to *avoid* this historical fact?


Julian658 wrote:
Racism is always wrong. However, we are attacking the problem incorrectly. For racism to exist we need two conditions. The oppressor must feel superior and the oppressed must feel inferior. That is why embracing the noble victim status is so devastating. America does not need minorities that are walking around as victims 24/7. IN my opinion that promotes racism. Calling a white man a supremacist promotes racism. They are certainly not the supreme race.



Why are you *individualizing* a factor that's actually *governmental* in scale, and what does anyone's 'feelings' have to do with this history? Why shouldn't we just simply directly address the *social history* that *caused* genocide, slavery, and (institutional) racism?

I think you have a *fetish* for capitalist markets, and you see that mechanism as somehow being *inviolate* and *infallible*, as though markets could somehow wipe-the-historical-slate-clean-with-its-purported-purity.

Can't you just accept that Western colonialism has been exceedingly *ugly* and barbaric against indigenous populations?
#15105097
ckaihatsu wrote:You're *still* attached to the idea that capitalist economics reflect a kind of *meritocracy* -- like UM, incidentally -- and that those who 'work hard' are 'most deserving' of wealth, or health, or 'success', etc.


As of now I believe in capitalism. AS I aid I do not think socialism can do the job. Unless capitalism naturally culminates in socialism.

I'll use the same argument with you as I did with UM -- consider someone who has *millions of dollars*. If they simply leave those millions in a savings account at the bank, at 1% interest, those millions will receive *tens of thousands of dollars* in interest every year, and the owner will not have had to do a *single thing*, in terms of personal *work* efforts.


It is called the Matthew effect.

Image
Image



I don't think the Matthew effect is clear, but those that are born into privilege fair better. The issue is how to create privilege de novo.


So the inequality of income begets a *further* inequality of income, based on *wealth ownership* alone. Your pretendings towards some kind of rustic hard-work moralism as the basis for success are *misguided*, at best, and I'm being *generous* towards your stated position.


See above. BTW, sometimes it pays to have good parents. The kids tend to do better than other kids with a crappy single parent. Life is not fair!


Would you likewise 'teach' Native Americans how to be successful, so that you can ignore the real history of *genocide* by the U.S. government against all native tribes in North America?

Why don't we just indict the social entity that's *responsible* for the genocide, slavery, and racism that continues to this day, the U.S. government (and all Western bourgeois governments)? Why are you trying to *avoid* this historical fact?


OK, how about giving North Africa back to the Christians?
How about preventing the Cro-magnon man from replacing the Neanderthal man?

Where do we draw the line?

The history of the world is migration and conquering of others.

Why are you *individualizing* a factor that's actually *governmental* in scale, and what does anyone's 'feelings' have to do with this history? Why shouldn't we just simply directly address the *social history* that *caused* genocide, slavery, and (institutional) racism?

I think you have a *fetish* for capitalist markets, and you see that mechanism as somehow being *inviolate* and *infallible*, as though markets could somehow wipe-the-historical-slate-clean-with-its-purported-purity.

Can't you just accept that Western colonialism has been exceedingly *ugly* and barbaric against indigenous populations?


I don't disagree, but see above. BY the way how about the brutality the Inca Empire did on smaller tribes?
HOw about Japan brutalizing th Koreans? Where do we draw rthe line? How about the Viking era from 900-1200 AD when they brutalized the British Isles? Grievance history never ends!
#15105106
Julian658 wrote:
As of now I believe in capitalism. AS I aid I do not think socialism can do the job. Unless capitalism naturally culminates in socialism.



It is called the Matthew effect.

[img]http://www.clubstreetpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Matthew-Effect-and-Its-Manifestations-in-Daily-Life.jpg[img]
[img]https://inservice.ascd.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Matthew-Effect-Chart.png[img]



I don't think the Matthew effect is clear, but those that are born into privilege fair better. The issue is how to create privilege de novo.




See above. BTW, sometimes it pays to have good parents. The kids tend to do better than other kids with a crappy single parent. Life is not fair!




OK, how about giving North Africa back to the Christians?
How about preventing the Cro-magnon man from replacing the Neanderthal man?

Where do we draw the line?

The history of the world is migration and conquering of others.



I don't disagree, but see above. BY the way how about the brutality the Inca Empire did on smaller tribes?
HOw about Japan brutalizing th Koreans? Where do we draw rthe line? How about the Viking era from 900-1200 AD when they brutalized the British Isles? Grievance history never ends!



I'm seeing only a couple of topics here:

1. All you're doing is *individualizing* the material world -- sure, that's been the *emergent* social practice to-date, but it doesn't have to *continue* this way. Whenever *infrastructure*, in particular, is built, it allows *many* people to benefit from the same thing, like roads or rails. Instead of this hyper-individuated obsessing, why shouldn't we have a common body -- government -- that strives to build *infrastructure*, so that people can simply benefit *in common*, without having to keep track of so much finance and possessions?

The more infrastructure, the better the society for *everyone*, and not just this-or-that wealthy individual, on an individual basis. This is on a *trajectory* towards socialism.

2. What you call 'grievance history' the rest of the world calls 'history' -- it's not like there are two timelines of events that happened in parallel. There's *one* objective timeline of events, and people can *interpret* that as they will.

Your concern is perilously close to *ignoring* history altogether, because you'd rather indulge your market fetishism in the present. It's really not my problem. Try using Wikipedia more.
#15105109
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

I already explained that I am not answering your question until you support your assumption.


Do you really want to get into per capita GDP comparisons? What I take it is that this is a silly dilatory tactic because you have no response to those examples.
#15105131
Pants-of-dog wrote:Provide evidence for this claim.


Check Angus Maddison's tables. Back in 1989, Ireland had a per capita GDP comparable to that of Singapore, Spain and Czechoslovakia. Neither was considered to be developed at the time and they were all undoubtedly poorer than (for instance) the UK.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Also, premises of arguments are not true just because you believe the conclusion.


Certainly not, just because you believe colonialism is the only reason why developed countries are developed it doesn't mean your premise on its persistence is true. And you are still ignoring both Turkey (former colonial master that is not a developed country today) and Singapore.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 9
Lecture On Tragedy of China's "Liberation"

@Patrickov I loved Professor Frank Dikotter's […]

Joe Biden

Do they? I wouldn't know. I am a conservative. […]

Blast in Beirut, Lebanon

@ckaihatsu Israel was invited in during the[…]

The vaccination was always the predetermined solut[…]