If races are not real, then you have to be logically consistent - Page 31 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15315890
FiveofSwords wrote:No, your brain seems to think things imply the opposite of what they do. You would be telling the Chinese they should accept British rule because there is no difference between races and you would accuse them of thinking the Chinese are the master race


At this point, I think you are not only incapable of showing where my argument was wrong, but are also incapable of understanding what my argument is.

Have a good one.
#15315893
Potemkin wrote:On Sunday May 12 at 1:46pm (GMT) you said, and I quote, “Slavery did not make Europeans wealthy.” :)

Likewise, there was a lot of profit in fishing also, but fishing isn't the reason Europeans became wealthy.

You can understand this concept, right? Just because there did exist some profit in some industry, it does not imply that that is the only industry that has any profit
#15315894
FiveofSwords wrote:Likewise, there was a lot of profit in fishing also, but fishing isn't the reason Europeans became wealthy.

You can understand this concept, right? Just because there did exist some profit in some industry, it does not imply that that is the only industry that has any profit

So you accept that the transatlantic slave trade was indeed profitable then? And do you accept that this profitability was the motive for doing it?
#15315895
Potemkin wrote:So you accept that the transatlantic slave trade was indeed profitable then? And do you accept that this profitability was the motive for doing it?

It was profitable of course. The motive, however, was to develop Virgin land as quickly as possible...North America had to catch up to Europe real fast and that would not have been possible without slave labor to move trees and roots. The tractor was not invented until 1865
Last edited by FiveofSwords on 19 May 2024 17:01, edited 1 time in total.
#15315898
@FiveofSwords

You also appear blind to the role colonialism played in the development of capitalism.

The trade in luxury commodities which many believe to be the most significant aspect of mercantile capitalism in the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries would not have not been possible without the elimination, dispossession, and enslavement of indigenous peoples in the Americas and the extraction of silver and other resources from their lands. The sixteenth century also saw the beginning of the systematic trade in human beings that would enslave millions of Africans. They too worked to mine these resources which were then used to trade with India and China. This was before being coerced to work on plantations to produce, sugar, tobacco, and cotton for European markets.

It was through the colonial processes of appropriation, possession, enslavement, and extraction that the world became capitalist.

The motive, however, was to develop [v]irgin land as quickly as possible.

The motive was to make as much money as possible as quickly as possible. If that meant clearing land, so be it.


:)
#15315901
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, it is as if colonialism, racism, and capitalism all mutually supported each other.

:|

That must be very fun for you to think until you learn that the reason northern states didn't have slaves is because the people simply could not tolerate being around blacks.

Think about it, dude. Having black slaves means black people are around. The southern states were not so racist that they could not handle that. The northern states were. In fact northern states did have slavery, they simply insisted on having white slaves like the Irish. Meanwhile the western frontier often used Chinese slaves instead of black, because Chinese were simply more acceptable than blacks.

What do those facts do to your silly little narrative?

Another thing to remember is that the southern plantation era was really pre-capitalism. The state made a lot more money from tariffs than it did taxes. Colonial slave usa was very much into mercantilism. Pure free market capitalism, the gilded age, really did not take off until the institution of slavery was abolished.

That's another little fact that seems to mess with your silly low info narrative.

Things to ponder.
#15315904
ingliz wrote:@FiveofSwords

You also appear blind to the role colonialism played in the development of capitalism.

The trade in luxury commodities which many believe to be the most significant aspect of mercantile capitalism in the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries would not have not been possible without the elimination, dispossession, and enslavement of indigenous peoples in the Americas and the extraction of silver and other resources from their lands. The sixteenth century also saw the beginning of the systematic trade in human beings that would enslave millions of Africans. They too worked to mine these resources which were then used to trade with India and China. This was before being coerced to work on plantations to produce, sugar, tobacco, and cotton for European markets.

It was through the colonial processes of appropriation, possession, enslavement, and extraction that the world became capitalist.


The motive was to make as much money as possible as quickly as possible. If that meant clearing land, so be it.


:)

The motive actually was not to make money. The primary motive was to make the usa powerful enough to protect its sovereignty from the British empire.

This is one of the reasons that capitalist zionists like Noel Ignatiev love to lie about thebirish not being considered white. The British empire actually did not give a rats fart about race. The Irish were weak enough to be enslaved, so they were enslaved. By Oliver Cromwell no less...the guy who loved to preach about the 'will of the people'.

For sure there were some people, like jewish Dutch slave traders, who just wanted to make money. And this is because they did not view the country as THEIR country...they were just there for the money. But they were a tiny population and this is why they loved to convert all their assets to precious metals. Because you can carry a gold bar in a backpavk...you cannot carry a plantation with 40 slaves in a backpack. So the plantation owners with the slaves were tied to the land and they were limited by the power and sovereignty of the usa. To them that was far more important than money which is why they were also so willing to die in battle.
#15315905
FiveofSwords wrote:It was profitable of course. The motive, however, was to develop Virgin land as quickly as possible...North America had to catch up to Europe real fast and that would not have been possible without slave labor to move trees and roots. The tractor was not invented until 1865

North America was not a nation back then. No-one was trying to “catch up” with anyone - they were simply trying to make as much money as possible as quickly as possible for themselves personally. The American colonies were just that - colonies. They were controlled from the mother country, in the interests of the mother country. The transatlantic slave trade was not instituted by ‘the South’, but by the British, and the main beneficiaries of it were, at least to start with, British aristocrats and merchants. We permanently fucked over your society, in the interests of making a quick buck. And nobody cared, because America wasn’t a nation; it was a resource-extraction area. As soon as the colonists living in that area started caring, after they had been living there a few generations, they got so angry that they launched a revolution. Because they knew just how badly the British were fucking them over.
#15315908
FiveofSword wrote:because Chinese were simply more acceptable than blacks

Chinamen were more acceptable than blacks because they were cheaper.

Contract labour...

Although slavery was not abolished in Cuba until 1886, the rising costs of slaves led plantations to recruit 138,000 indentured labourers from China between 1847 and 1873.


:lol:
#15315910
FiveofSwords wrote:That must be very fun for you to think until you learn that the reason northern states didn't have slaves is because the people simply could not tolerate being around blacks.

Think about it, dude. Having black slaves means black people are around. The southern states were not so racist that they could not handle that. The northern states were. In fact northern states did have slavery, they simply insisted on having white slaves like the Irish. Meanwhile the western frontier often used Chinese slaves instead of black, because Chinese were simply more acceptable than blacks.

What do those facts do to your silly little narrative?


Thise facts do absolutely nothing to my narrative. They are irrelevant.

Another thing to remember is that the southern plantation era was really pre-capitalism. The state made a lot more money from tariffs than it did taxes. Colonial slave usa was very much into mercantilism. Pure free market capitalism, the gilded age, really did not take off until the institution of slavery was abolished.

That's another little fact that seems to mess with your silly low info narrative.

Things to ponder.


The ruse of capitalism was taking place at the same time as the rise of the transatlantic slave trade. So while slavery also aided in mercantilist efforts, the international aspect of it (like buying shares) was fundamentally capitalist and became the norm.
#15315923
Potemkin wrote:North America was not a nation back then. No-one was trying to “catch up” with anyone - they were simply trying to make as much money as possible as quickly as possible for themselves personally. The American colonies were just that - colonies. They were controlled from the mother country, in the interests of the mother country. The transatlantic slave trade was not instituted by ‘the South’, but by the British, and the main beneficiaries of it were, at least to start with, British aristocrats and merchants. We permanently fucked over your society, in the interests of making a quick buck. And nobody cared, because America wasn’t a nation; it was a resource-extraction area. As soon as the colonists living in that area started caring, after they had been living there a few generations, they got so angry that they launched a revolution. Because they knew just how badly the British were fucking them over.


You would think they would learn from history of the past in colonization problems but instead they imitated the bad model set up by the British. It all led to problems in Latin America as well. Colonizing land for extraction set ups is just terrible and will always be so.

What did it do for the British working classes and middle classes? Not much. The money never trickled down.

It is super hot over here. And the family is having fun. In the pool. So did I! The water is a beautiful blue green and it is so refreshing. The heat hit 107 right now. It is bad! The water gun helped. There are six boys in my house right now. Age 14 years through 8. They all love splashing in that pool!! ;)
#15315933
FiveofSwords wrote:A nation is a race


In what language are these words synonyms? Where I am from, in French, older generations use the word "race" to mean "nation." But this is almost never the case in English, anywhere.

You can't transfer the logic of one language to another by just translating the words. If you are a 90-year-old Québecois living in a cottage in the woods... you should try to learn more about the way English is used.

ingliz wrote:...Slavery funded the Industrial Revolution in the UK....


Not only slavery. The ecological destruction of various colonies (Ireland, Canada, India etc.) also brought in lots of gold. Quebec lost ALL of its great birch trees in order to produce ships to fight Napoleon. Ireland lost 80% of its forests.

The ONLY RACES THAT MATTER seem to think that slavery and the destruction of the world's life-support systems is "worth it" in order to have nicer stuff than other people.
#15315947
ingliz wrote:Chinamen were more acceptable than blacks because they were cheaper.

Contract labour...

Although slavery was not abolished in Cuba until 1886, the rising costs of slaves led plantations to recruit 138,000 indentured labourers from China between 1847 and 1873.


:lol:


And they all wound up racially mixing. Anacaona all women's band in Cuba had their Chinese Cuban ancestors from that group.
#15315949
QatzelOk wrote:In what language are these words synonyms? Where I am from, in French, older generations use the word "race" to mean "nation." But this is almost never the case in English, anywhere.

You can't transfer the logic of one language to another by just translating the words. If you are a 90-year-old Québecois living in a cottage in the woods... you should try to learn more about the way English is used.



Not only slavery. The ecological destruction of various colonies (Ireland, Canada, India etc.) also brought in lots of gold. Quebec lost ALL of its great birch trees in order to produce ships to fight Napoleon. Ireland lost 80% of its forests.

The ONLY RACES THAT MATTER seem to think that slavery and the destruction of the world's life-support systems is "worth it" in order to have nicer stuff than other people.

Nation always meant the political part of an ethnicity or race. Always. 'Academics' did not start trying to use it as a synonym for country until around the 1960s...and that was just a self aware effort to undermine identity and support this absurd and fake idea that it is possible to build a 'nation' around 'shared values'. The 'proposition nation'. And I suppose that the 'shared values' is based on shopping for consumer products

But the old meaning of nation still does exist. It would appear if you used a term like 'scottish nationalism or of course 'white nationalism'. Nation state still means a state composed of a single nation (ethnicity). The root natio means birth. You are born into a nation..you don't immigrate into one.

When people educated in history or political science use the word nation, they typically mean the old meaning..because they are used to reading books prior to 1960

Also, it was funny that you brought up fighting napoleon. If you knew the loving conditions of a gunner in her majesty's royal navy, you would notice the absurdity of believing these people were motivated to do anything by having nicer stuff than other people. You need a different explanation.
#15315950
FiveofSwords wrote:If you knew the loving conditions of a gunner

Buggery?

You need a different explanation

The cat...

Image

Noun
cat-o'-nine-tails (plural cats-o'-nine-tails)

1. (nautical) A scourge (multi-tail whip) having nine, often knotted, whipcords, formerly used for flogging as naval punishment.


:lol:
#15315958
ingliz wrote:Buggery?


The cat...

Image

Noun
cat-o'-nine-tails (plural cats-o'-nine-tails)

1. (nautical) A scourge (multi-tail whip) having nine, often knotted, whipcords, formerly used for flogging as naval punishment.


:lol:


Sorry but no. That explanation fails based on simple logic. You are talking about the military itself. Without a military, no 'power' can force anyone to do anything at all, including getting flogged. Even with a military you cannot force most things...you can only provide the option between compliance and death.
#15315962
FiveofSwords wrote:Nation always meant the political part of an ethnicity or race. Always. 'Academics' did not start trying to use it as a synonym for country until around the 1960s...and that was just a self aware effort to undermine identity and support this absurd and fake idea that it is possible to build a 'nation' around 'shared values'. The 'proposition nation'. And I suppose that the 'shared values' is based on shopping for consumer products

But the old meaning of nation still does exist. It would appear if you used a term like 'scottish nationalism or of course 'white nationalism'. Nation state still means a state composed of a single nation (ethnicity). The root natio means birth. You are born into a nation..you don't immigrate into one.

When people educated in history or political science use the word nation, they typically mean the old meaning..because they are used to reading books prior to 1960

Also, it was funny that you brought up fighting napoleon. If you knew the loving conditions of a gunner in her majesty's royal navy, you would notice the absurdity of believing these people were motivated to do anything by having nicer stuff than other people. You need a different explanation.


You do not make any sense. Not even common sense. Throughout human history nation-states are relatively new constructs. And they are the dominant form of what a country is in this day and age. Which means you can be African-looking and be British. You can look Chinese and be American. Why can't you accept that is what it is and not some definition that you can't even define well?

What @Potemkin and even @Rich described was that the wars were about nations and about religions mostly and not about how someone 'looked'. There is a preponderance of the evidence that it is about some elite that needs a war that has to do with power and extraction, not about race as in somatic limited categorizations.

Spain has had and still has people within it that are different ethnicities and they speak different languages to this very day. Yet it is a nation-state that has different ethnic groups present. That is obvious.

This simplistic color code crap you insist on is FICTION. Not even the Nazis in WWII believed in that shit. If they could get a Dutch Nazi or a Spanish Nazi or Italian Sicilian Nazi to fight on their side they WOULD ACCEPT THEM.

To this very day, you can join the US Marine Corps not being a US citizen and being a citizen of a nation that is not the USA and still can be a US Marine. They often recruit aliens (as if they came from outer space), and be a Marine. Why? They need warm bodies to be trained and go and fight all over the world. The nation-state is a product of the modern political class.

The color coded neatness is not happening. Race wars are for people who are foolish anyway. In Prison people invent false identities of I am a Crypt or a Blood, a Mara, or a M13, a Latin King or a Shark or a Jet or whatever stupid gang affiliation they decided to become because it is about group survival of kill or be killed in prison.

The government is about changing the rule according to what the world economy and elite want it to become. And they want it to be about consumption. I already put in a piece on the Death of the American Dream. It was not killed by hatred of races. it was killed by some bad values and creating divisions that are based on what is good for the elite to retain power around the world.

You really are just illogical in everything.
  • 1
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 62

Turkish farmers were the first white men; your lo[…]

It's been addressed already, no need to address t[…]

Teacher questions appropriateness of pow-wow

I don't think any race is superior @Pants-of-do[…]

Picassos hung in toilet cubicle at Mona in respons[…]