Of all the things said on this forum, and it's mine that needs manners.
L'Oreal sack first transgender model for racism
- Thread starter 2 man midfield
- Start date
- Status
Yes, your post couldn't have been any more condescending if you tried. I didn't weigh up the history of the entire forum and come to the conclusion that yours was the worst, I just came into the thread and read an extremely condescending post.
Advocating pride in a heritage because it was the best at killing populations is a pretty despicable and condescending attitude if you ask me. So I don't feel too bad about how I responded. If it ruffles some feathers, so be it. Europeans DO have a lot to be proud of, but conquering shouldn't be one of them despite it shaping the world we live in today. It is what it is.
@Dumat12 - my response has been edited into post #477
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/lor...model-for-racism.432145/page-12#post-21482064
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/lor...model-for-racism.432145/page-12#post-21482064
Everything these days seems fit to be deemed 'racist'. No, it's not racist, it's a guy that doesn't care about political corectness saying it how it is. But I guess in the current cultural environment that we're in that could be deemed as 'racist', I guess.
Giving a neutral perspective of people who have dealt with this for longer than you and me and who have seen first hand what happens in Africa. Of people who are unafraid of calling things by their name instead of "Nah, you're all fine, it's the white men that are putting you down". In this day and age, in the West, it's impossible to delve into these 'controversial' topics without the word 'racist' being used against you. The documentary just gives an idea about what the Chinese think of colonization and how 'exploitive' it really was. Of course since the documentary is from a neutral perspective (the director is from Belgium) you also get the perspective of the Africans there.
I think we were talking about the colonization period by the Europeans as being deemed 'genocide' rather than the American treatment of them. Furthermore, no it was hardly genocide, it was simply the conquering of people by the sword. If you start to consider what the US did to the Native Americans as 'genocide', then I'm sorry but ever since the dawn of time one set of people has genocided another. Using this logic we can claim that the Akkadians genocided the Sumerians, the Romans genocided the Gauls, the Arabs genocided the Persians, so on and so on. We can go on forever, but the point is none of these can be classified as 'genocide', they are simply an example of conquests of other people who are forced to integrate into the culture and way of life of the people that conquered them. So classifying what happened to the Native Americans as genocide will mean that any people that conquered another set of people can be classified as genocide because every nation that has conquered another has tried to reinforce their set of beliefs, culture, way of life and anything else you can think of on another.
So either we agree that the genociding of people has been going since the dawn of time which will nulify the status of the Native American one as any special or out of the ordinary or we agree that what happened to them is not even close to genocide, but a conquest of one set of people from another, something that has happened since the dawn of history. Either way you can't have both
Really? Is that the best you can do? How many times have you replied to me right now? 3-4? And every time it's the same shtick: "You're dumb, I'm smart. You don't know shit, I know everything". Why don't you try and elaborate on why you think you know more about history than me instead of using ad hominem attacks against me.
Not to be pedantic or anything, as I'm far from a history expert.
But didn't the Mongols and Macedonians welcome new culture as they (or at least their leaders) wanted to expand and make the conquered not have to integrate at such a extreme level?
@Dumat12 - so you ignore the textbook definition of genocide, reject offhand the numerous ways in which the history of the Native American interactions with a colonizing power line up with said definition, and instead insert your own and ask us to accept your view of history as being correct.
It appears that there is someone in this thread engaging in revisionist history, but I'm afraid it isn't me.
A suggestion: actually do some serious work in the field of Genocide Studies and the large subfield within it on Colonialism. There's a reason why they exist.
It appears that there is someone in this thread engaging in revisionist history, but I'm afraid it isn't me.
A suggestion: actually do some serious work in the field of Genocide Studies and the large subfield within it on Colonialism. There's a reason why they exist.
Last edited:
I suggest you stop listening to fascist online, also here's a reply to your shite talking.
His argument is a lot simpler. He is basically saying "everybody has done it, so where is the problem?" Nobody in academia argues on this basic level, because whether everybody engaged in a behaviour or not doesn't change the action itself the slightest. Obviously context is important but his argument doesn't really focus on context in its complex nature but just the tiny layer an abstract view at first glance can provide. And that of what, an odd 3000 years of something as simple as war activity.
I got the sense of that as well. The "it means they're not special" (something to that effect) was the cherry on top.
No they do not, and you're quite right.
It's all getting very Irving/Shayler. If you want to call a whale a fish then go right ahead, it just seems strange to invent your own definitions and then get upset when people don't want to use them.
Dealt with what exactly?
I sometimes wonder how I would feel if I was white and were told that. I don't think it's a fair statement, parts of it are true, but it's not entirely fair. What could the average white man do during the period of slavery and colonialism to stop it? Did the average white man directly benefit? Most people didn't own slaves or live in colonies, yet they did benefit from societies built on those things, but what are you supposed to do? Move into a cave?
What can white people do now? I suppose you could accept your privilige, regardless of whether you asked for it or not. You could be fairer towards people who don't have the same opportunities, but on the whole the individual isn't responsible for most things and can't influence them either.
If this girl still stands by her comments and refused to acknowledge how they could come across, why did she delete the post?
Very good post. The thing is, this woman is reaping those benefits too, we all are by having this conversation on the internet in a way.
White priviledge does exist and we still have a long way to go to fight racism, but that fight still seems very much at times like just blaming innocent people because they happen to have been born with a certain skin colour. Which is incredibly hypocritical.
Was it not facebook who deleted it based on inciting hatred?
Just thinking back to my previous post about what could be done, what about positive discrimination? Surely that could help? Does anyone know if it's helped in South Africa?
Personally, I think that's a terrible way of dealing with things.
Take employment, surely people should be hired based on ability and not colour of their skin? Of course though, this then goes back to if different races get the same level of education and opportunities to get those skills. But neither of these things can change overnight, but they are changing.
As I've said before, the guys I grew up with all had the same education and chances I've had, and if we all one day went for the same job I'd expect whomever was more qualified should get it. I don't think forcing companies to have 'quotas' does anything more than papering over the cracks, we simply have to go deeper.
I'm thinking about earlier on in the process. It doesn't have to just be racial either. Maybe schools with a higher intake of ethnic minorities should be given extra funding? This could be the same for schools based in poor WWC communities too. Maybe these areas could get career guidance in school so kids understand what options they have in higher education? Labour had that £30 quid a week/month poor kids got to go to college, that would be great in helping them with costs.
On a global level there is a HUGE amount countries could do, especially European countries. Look at how much aid is given to countries to buy influence, how farmers get poor rates from big suppliers, all these little things.
Yeah, that's what my post touched on, it has to go deep to have any meaning. I'm all for adding things like extra English classes available to all and stuff like that, get everyone on the same level as much as possible. I believe that does happen already, but how much I don't know.
There are plenty of classes in schools in London where a white kid is now a minority btw, my nephew's last school photo had him as the only white child in a class of 32. So even using the term minority in that regard is obsolete in a sense, I think we have to be more targetted to needs rather than thinking in terms of minorities and skin colour and all that.
But then I am only speaking from my little bubble and I clearly don't fully understand the real issues facing people around the world. Which is why, as I've said before, I'm so very thankful I grew up in a multicultural area.
Short term you are correct. Long-term, I think it has an important role to play.
It actually seems to have worked very well for the company that I'm with in terms of performance since they have enforced it voluntarily. Maybe a conversation for the Google sacking thread though.
No it didn't work in south Africa.
South Africa is a "great" example what happens when racial identity politics trump everything else. One of the least competent governments ever is staying in power and potential alternatives are doubling down on identity, while reasonable voices are getting pushed aside.
Ah you are right. Didn't see that.
The trouble with her post was that you can't use all-encompassing statements, then try and back track and say it's not individuals. When you post about "racial violence of white people any more. Yes ALL white people." I've never been racially violent, neither have a large majority so there is no defending that statement. As much as some in this thread will try.
There is no doubt that she has some valid points, but they were executed poorly and she or her new employers seem to miss that.
The paper (cited more than 10,000 times because of its importance) essentially proves that extractive institutions established by colonialists (like in Congo for example) explain why so many countries still remain poor. You can therefore understand why I'd rather not watch an obscure video when the pernicious effects of colonialism have been so firmly established.
How do you say with such confidence that EVERYONE conquered and raped countries? Forget the American genocide, history is littered with other examples. Would every country have massacred an unarmed, peaceful gathering? Would all countries have tortured thousands of rebels in Kenya? Would all countries have ignored a famine that killed millions? These are all examples within four-five generations so slightly more relevant than what happened in Rome.
Finally, I'm curious which education system shaped such ignorance: where are you from?
Racism has no borders.
It would like to though.
That guy is still trying to justify colonialism?
feck that guy, excuse my bluntness but I don't know why some even bother arguing with such rubbish.
....and I said I was going to swerve this thread. Bubye...
Nah I agree with you, he deserves no manners. Feck him.
Even I didn't have the energy to reply to him.
I personally love the bit about how we look at history with todays standards; like "thou shall not steal" is a modern concept.
13 pages of this shit?
I don't think she's "on to something", I just think she's an idiot who made a very poor comment.
I don't think she's "on to something", I just think she's an idiot who made a very poor comment.
Not really. The Mongols almost completely wiped the Persians off the map when they invaded, the Kievan Rus lost half of its population upon the invasion and they also brought great destruction onto China in population and property. Yes, sure, after the people submit and become obedient to the Mongols they were left alone, but the initial wars and devastation killed millions either way. And if for some reason the people didn't submit, they were slaughtered to the last man, woman and child.
As for Alexander he commited quite a few atrocities himself - he killed civilians just because they resisted him thoroughly at the siege of Tyre and he brought complete destruction of Persepolis and Thebes. So even though he was gentle to those who bowed to him and mostly to those who resisted him even, he was still prone to fits of rage when things didn't go exactly how he wanted them to go.
In short both Alexander and Genghis tried to be tolerant of other people in their empire simply because the places they conquered were far larger than their own nations and the people that controlled were far more numerous.
No, because it's not an organized effort to kill off an entire ethnic population like the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide, the Holodomor, etc. It's simply one set of people conquering another and imposing their beliefs and system onto them in the process maybe even killing a few. If you try to label it as some kind of an organized genocide meant to eradiccate the Native Americans, you can practically LABEL any conquest of another nation as 'genocide'. That's why it doesn't work.
'Fascist online'? What is that? Furthermore I really have no time to waste on watching these videos, just tell me the basics of it.
African people, the way their countries are run, the environment in which they live in, etc. These Chinese people that work there have seen far more than either of us will ever see so their opinion is valuable.
Nothing is established. The countries remain poor because of the people there, not us. I would understand if Europeans saw Africa as a prosperous region which people there living like kings and enjoying the fruit of their labor, but what Europe saw there was just people still stuck in the stone age unable to move forward and unable to use their resources (if we exclude the kingdom of Mansa Musa which you will surely use as a counter-argument here. We can delve into this topic a little deeper fi you want). Europeans basically uplifted them by giving them access to modern day medicine, infrastructure, technology and a system of governorship. Whether or not you think the deaths left in its trail were justified is an entirely different matter.
Literally fecking thousands upon thousands of such cases in history. Recently like the Taiping Rebellion, the Balkan Wars, the Assyrian genocide. In each war you would see several of the things you mentioned happening. In EACH. I don't believe there's a single war when an unprovoked massacre of people didn't take place. Even recently like the Iraq war.
What led you to believe that I am the ignorant one and not you?
Racism is studying history and making my own conclusions based on what happened rather than listening to what some dipshit in the media tells me about 'white privilege' and how white people are the root of all evil in the world? Or what some idiot teacher whose only merits for being there is how "progressive" he is tell me how ashamed I should be of being white. If that's the case then I prefer to be 'racist' than an ignorant child who feels guilty over what his ancestors did.
Denial of the Native Americans genocide is pushed forward by white supremacists/fascist, the video I linked to shows in a number of way that what happened to Native Americans was genocide.
I image you can find the time to watch it.
Okay so I have at least 3 problems with this - admittedly having only watched the clip you shared because I don't have the stomach or the time for the full documentary:
1) It's a documentary about one situation in one country. You can't draw conclusions about an entire continent from that.
2) The main person talking in the clip seems ignorant. For a start the way he talks is not serious and you could say the same things about people in the UK if you went to the right places. He also mentions stuff like them "not using what was left for them" by the Belgians which leads me on to
3) Have you read about what Belgium did to the Congo? It was beyond atrocious. I certainly can't ever be proud of being "the best" at cutting innocent people's hands off.
Sort of weird for him to post a Youtube video he expected people to watch then turn around and say he has no time to watch these videos (well he called it a waste). Very odd. Makes me wonder now if he is being serious here or if he is just wumming but in a very poor way?
So laws passed by state and federal governments aren't "an organized effort"?
Okay then. Ignorance must be bliss.
It is interesting that you didn't start with thou shall not kill.
I think you are wrong on this point, of course, we morally judge history from today's perspective but if you want to understand how things happened and why you have to accept that the way people thought and organised themselves was very different because it was.
So, for example, this idea that the state serves us is a modern first world bubble, in the past and in the present in some countries you served the state and it owed you nothing. If your crops fail and you starve tough shit. If your river got polluted and your kids died tough shit. If you held the wrong belief about what happens when you die and you were burnt at the stake tough shit. The state protected itself and the commoner's life was incidental to its interest.
I guess it comes down to why you want to find out about what happened in the past and why it happened. If you can't bring yourself to understand your peculiar perspective on history from this privileged end of the time line then I think you are missing the whole point.
Who told you this exactly?
Because I don't care about the opinion of some guy on YouTube having a beef with another guy. The guy also seems totally biased in every video I just saw in his channel. Okay, let's see what he argues in his video. For example he tries to argue that the Europeans actively tried to kill off the natives with diseases which is stupid and inaccurate. He wants to blame the Europeans because they didn't provide the natives with enough food or whatever to survive, and that in his opinion counts as genocide. You what? Since when was a group of people obliged to help another group of people? He also argues that taking over Native American land must be considered genocide which means that practically any war with the aim of conquest should be considered a means of genociding another set of people.
Whether you like it or not the Native Americans lost the majority of their population due to the random diseases they contracted over the course of a few centuries, not because they were sought to be wiped out. Yes, sure, the taking of their land and trying to assimilate them into American culture had a hand in that, but there was no organized effort to wipe out the Native Americans at any point of history. If there was, there would be no Native Americans today.
What laws? The Indian Removal Act? It's a resettlement policy, not genocide. If Andrew Jackson's point was to genocide the Indians, he would have killed them all, not resettle them to other lands. That CANNOT be considered genocide under any means. Was it the right thing to do? feck no, they didn't deserve that, but to classify it as genocide is utterly ridiculous
1. No I think we can safely conclude that this is relevant to the entire continent considering that Congo was one of the worst run colonies.
2. He knows more about this stuff than both of us do because he is working there and he experiences this first hand. Forgive me but I think his opinion of how things are run there is more relevant than your opinion you've taken from someone who told you how bad the Europeans ran the country. Even the director himself said in an interview (he is a Belgian) that the Africans there were asking him "When will you be back?" and "Why did you leave" and he himself was surprised by the reactions of the people there? The point here is that even in the worst run colony in Africa people are longing for the 'good ol' days'.
3. Yes, it was atrocious but that doesn't exclude the good things that came from it and how it benefited the natives. As I said, this is a matter of whether you believe the 'ends justify the means' or not. I believe in it. If you don't, then that's totally fine.
Thank you. That's what I'm trying to say. To judge the people before our time with today standards and morals is extremely stupid and ignorant. Slavery was extremely normal in Roman times and encouraged by every nation out there, yet today it's thought as abhorrent (even though slavery still exists in most of the world, it's just called by a different name). Times change, morals change, society changes. You can't look at history from present day morals and judge the others before you on what you find normal. I would understand if only white people have done this, then you can say that white people are indeed evil and this wasn't normal for the entire world, but the case with the Native Americans was done by everyone, even the Native Americans themselves. The Aztecs practiced the same things (even way more brutal and vicious) onto the subjects they conquered, but nobody blames them. It's the evil white people who came and ruined their peaceful society.
It's such bullshit that in this day and age you can't defend yourself without someone accusing you of racism even when you're 100% correct on the things you say and you can back them up. All that matters is your feelings.
So he watched it then
@Dumat12 A quote from a piece in the LA Times
Again it was genocide.
You can read the rest here - http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-madley-california-genocide-20160522-snap-story.html
Again it was genocide.
Yeah I really don't get it, why would someone want to wum about genocide.
All you really needed to say from the get-go. Explains so much at this point.
1) it doesn't matter how many people are killed in a genocide. That a large portion of Natives died from disease in no way affects the acts committed against them at other points in history.
2) the only way you could possibly argue that there was no organized effort to exterminate Natives and native culture is to totally ignore historical fact. You've accomplished this.
3) to argue that there was no genocide committed against the Natives because Natives still exist is arguing an absurdity considering there are still, I dunno...Jews. Or are you gonna argue against that genocide too?
Last edited:
- Status