Might is right wrong.
L'Oreal sack first transgender model for racism
- Thread starter 2 man midfield
- Start date
- Status
Sigh... And? At the end of the day what USA did with "Manifest Destiny" is no different than what any country who wanted to conquer something did. Fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the Native American population was wiped out by diseases they contracted from Europeans with the Europeans infecting them unknowingly. Pretty much like the Black Death in Europe. The killings of Native Americans during multiple small conflits didn't even put a dent on their population, what did them in was the various diseases from which they died. So you can't sit here and argue that the US as a whole wanted to purge the Native Americans because that simply isn't true.
This is what the 'great emancipator' Abraham Lincoln said about blacks:
Doesn't mean he went on to genocide the blacks, does it? He did exactly the opposite.
Does it? No, because your argument is that colonization never brought ANYTHING good to the African continent and people which is quite simply not true.
So do you agree then that using this definition of genocide we can label pretty much anything in history as genocide? Want some examples? The Akkadian conquest of Sumer, the Persian conquest of Egypt, the Carthaginian conquest of Sicily, Iberia and North Africa,, the Roman conquest of Carthage, Gaul, Italian peninsula, Illyria, Iberia, the Arab conquest of Persia, North Africa, Iberia.................................................... the Tang conquests, the Mongol conquests, the Turko-Mongol conquests............................. the colonization period, etc. Can we agree that all of these are genocide or not? Because using your definition of genocide every single war in existence falls under that category.
What historical fact? Resettlement policy is NOT genocide. What other 'organized' effort to exterminate anyone you can think of?
The Jewish genocide was stopped by a war, if you don't remember. I don't recall anyone declaring war on the US for genociding the Native Americans and stopping them. Was there one? Fact of the matter is, if there was truly an organized effort to exterminate the Native indigenous people by the US, there would be no Native Americans alive today.
And this is what Abraham Lincoln the 'Great Emancipator' said about blacks:
Doesn't mean he went on to genocide them, does it? In fact he did completely the opposite. Racism towards other groups was considered normal back then, especially to Europeans who considered themselves superior to other people. This anti-racism sentiment that exists today is a new concept developed shortly after WWII and shouldn't be taken as something out of the ordinary for the time Thomas Jefferson and George Washington lived.
@Dumat12 Did you even read the LA time pieces I quoted from ? Also the Lincoln example your using is mind numbingly stupid.
I get that it's fun to be so edgy and controversial, sticking it to the history man. But this is a really ugly point of argument. Can't you just join 4chan or something.
The problem is that you actually are a racist, and proud of it.
No, you're not racist at all.
It has been established - the paper (along with several others) I shared shows hows. Given that you're talking out of your arse, I'd rather not delve any deeper.
It is great when these guys out themselves tho. Rather the open blatant bs than the snide subliminals.
Genuine comedy gold. You should be on the standup circuit.
Perhaps you can explain why us darkies who are primitive in ourhomelands seem to do so well when abroad? Don't try and blag it's European influence either. The Indians in Africa did great, in fact the Indians in India are doing great now they've finally started to shake off colonialism. In fact the Indians in India were doing great before colonialism too. India was in fact the worlds largest economy at the time. The Chinese post colonialism have become a superpower, wealthier and more powerful than Britain. Mind you that's old news for China, it's always been an Empire.
As for uplifting, you're right. There's nothing like a whip across the back to motivate a man to pick cotton quicker, increasing productivity and overall improving masters profits. Here are some quotes about uplifting you might want to refute with more comedic lies....
The full article with tons of other facts is here - http://siliconafrica.com/france-colonial-tax/
Last edited:
To be fair to @Dumat12 there's no doubt western civilisation improved some societies, in some ways. But to argue they're at anything other than a net loss overall seems strange. It wasn't conquer or be conquered to the poor people on the end of these slaughters. If we're absolving the common white man from his role in colonialism then you have to look at the poor people on the receiving end who also had nothing to do with empire. Whatever your definition of genocide, there's no doubt that there was a mass rape of labour and resources in the name of pure greed which was dressed up as a civilising mission.
Wowzer. It never fails to surprise me that this stuff is actually ingrained in some people.
So anyone who comes into this thread new and just skims it will end up thinking that some transgender model was fired for her part in colonialism and the Native American genocide?
Which societies are you talking about here? Dismissing vast swathes of history as essentially lawless is incredibly problematic.
The scary bit is how certain they are of what they say.
@Dumat12
What do you think of the Nazi occupation of France?
What do you think of the Nazi occupation of France?
You have fecked up the quote function there and I would appreciate it if you rectified it.
It is probably true though with regards to how societies, tribes, countries, and empires treated each other for most of history. I wouldn't say it's universally true of all peoples of all times but I'd be interested if you could give me some examples from history where you think laws existed which governed those interactions and held true despite asymmetrical military power?
Sorry...
Don't worry about it, these things happen.
Indians dying in their vast majority by random diseases constitutes as genocide now... Okay. Try studying history more, okay? These things have happened in every single war in history against civilians also. 30 million people died in the Taiping rebellion, but you don't call that genocide, do you? It's war, it's not meant to be pretty for the conquered.
The only reason why some people even consider the Native Americans as being genocided is because of their vastly inferior technology compared to the Europeans. If they had similiar technology, it would have been thought as just another war between two powers.
Sigh...
At this point even discussing this with you seems like a waste of time. Just one more question and I'm done - how well was Africa off before the Europeans found the continent? Keep in mind that the colonization period lasted only approximately 70 years. So do tell me about the great richness of Africa before they were found, okay? How prosperous were they? How well was Africa off before Europeans brought modern day civilization upon them (literally)? Do keep in mind that by the time Europeans found the continent nations like Mali and Egypt were dirt poor.
Tell me also how Europeans brought the slave trade to Africa because that's also a common myth surrounding the colonization period.
Perhaps I phased myself wrong - what I meant to say is the 'culture' of the people there. Indians in Africa? Whatever do you mean by that?
Also, India being the richest nation in the world back then is a myth. By the time Britain colonized the continent Nader Shah plundered the Mughal treasury and ruined their economy. The Mughals were also plagued by constant revolts and the lands ravaged by the constant wars of Aurangzeb. That's why Britainwas able to colonize the entire subcontinent, really. After being plundered from all directions India could no longer defend itself from foreign powers and lost their sovereignty. The days when the Mughals were the richest empire in the world were way before the British colonization period began.
China was never colonized. China is also not a superpower by any means, you need to learn the definition of a 'superpower'. Furthermore of course China is more powerful than Britain because China has 1,3 billion people while the UK only has like 60 million. Wealthier is a matter of perspective. Sure, their GDP is much larger than Britain because of their large population, but at the same time they are definitely not as wealthy as Britain considering their GDP per capita is 8,000 while Britain's 40,000. That's the most accurate way to measure a nation's wealth and also the only thing that affects you personally. Doesn't matter if China has 10 times the economy of the US in the future if you live like a dirt rat unable to buy yourself food, does it?
And the last part - you're wrong again. China hasn't been an empire 'forever'. They have been conquered by other nations and also have been shattered into numerous small kingdoms many times in their history for geat lenghts of a time. In fact the Manchus, the Qing Dynasty, wasn't even Chinese per se. They were foreign overlords who ruled over the Chinese.
Sorry but your article is incredibly biased and inaccurate. France doesn't take $500 billion from its former colonies in Africa, it holds 50% of their cash reserves on their behalf (not 65%, let alone 85%), so about $20 billion. For France, it's a pretty small sum. And the reserves aren't converted into French francs. They stay in CFA francs. Since the French franc does not exist, even as an accounting unit, it can not devalue. The CFA france exchange rate is fixed to the euro. The arrangement is voluntary, every CFA franc member is free to withdraw from it (& withdraw their money). So none are forced to hand over money to France.
I must say, it's no wonder you people are so brainwashed if you really trust articles such as this. (articles that don't even try to hide how incredibly biased are "France wouldn't even be a country in the 21st century if it wasn't for Africa... lol)
Is this a joke? Do these people know how much money that is?
Genocide is a umbrella term that is hardly useful.
@Dumat12 hasn't responded to my stupid bait-and-switch, but anyway I'll go ahead.
This is true for you too @Don't Kill Bill
France post-WW2 has been a relatively stable state, with a very good standard of living and a stable state providing the framework for businesses to expand.
However, before the Nazi occupation, this wasn't the case.
France had its first, famous, revolution in 1789. Such was the anger of the population with their rulers that there were mass executions of the existing royalty, and then the short-lived successors. As soon as the people got power, they unleashed a reign of terror. Tragically a republic was declared in this unstable country. It is obvious the French psyche wasn't ready for this, since in 15 short years the republic was deposed by a new monarch.
The monarch himself was overextended - perhaps a characteristic of French people? - and was humiliated and defeated in 2 wars within 10 years of obtaining power. There followed inevitable political turmoil before the original monarchy finally could take power this time under a constitutional framework. However, within 20 years, the constitution was discarded and the monarchy became more absolute; at the first hint of economic issues the impetuous French people again deposed their rulers.
To the surprise of no-one who understood the perversions of the French mind, this state of affairs lasted 3 years, and a nephew of the previous monarch established himself on the throne as the autocrat. Like every French ruler before him (surely this condition is genetic?) he also started a pig-headed war against stronger neighbours and was duly rewarded with a huge defeat.
Now the Parisians showed they were indeed the heart of France - the distilled essence of the country's backwards thinking. They established a commune, destroyed businesses and ancient wealth and the church. Order was restored with a massacre in the capital, 2 months after this experiment began.
It seemed finally that the French had pushed something through their thick skulls, and the new constitutional order lasted for 70 years! However, towards the end, again the people responded to their material misery with demands of populism; the establishment of labour-friendly laws like minimum wage and limited working hours. Clearly the people were still too ignorant to realise that they weren't meant for this.
Enter the Nazi regime. In a role reversal, the French were occupied by their neighbours, who set up French-led government (perhaps this courtesy should never have been extended to these volatile people). They quickly reversed the unfeasible ideas about minimum wage and working limits, and re-introduced slavery. They also helped reduce the population, and were quick to massacre those who thought of rebelling (the various monarchs could have learnt a thing or two). Perhaps the genes responsible for the France's periodic rebellions were helpfully culled in these years. Magnanimously, the Nazis prepared detailed plans for government-controlled recovery and growth of the economy.
After the German-established French regime was replaced by a US/UK-established French regime, the new French leader in a welcome show of French humillity implemented the German plans. From 1945 to today, the French have seen fairly consistent rises in their standard of living, and no rebellions. Clearly the Nazi occupation, brief as it was, changed the French psyche for the better and even provided them with the economic planning they would never have managed on their own. There have been blips with the old anarchic spirt showing up in 1968, and in repeated strikes and shutdowns, but post Vichy, the French people have overall learned their lesson.
It is a tragedy that the majority of French people dislike the VIchy regime, and a historic crime that Germans are ashamed of their Nazi past. They should hold it in the same reverence that the British hold the Raj.
This is true for you too @Don't Kill Bill
France post-WW2 has been a relatively stable state, with a very good standard of living and a stable state providing the framework for businesses to expand.
However, before the Nazi occupation, this wasn't the case.
France had its first, famous, revolution in 1789. Such was the anger of the population with their rulers that there were mass executions of the existing royalty, and then the short-lived successors. As soon as the people got power, they unleashed a reign of terror. Tragically a republic was declared in this unstable country. It is obvious the French psyche wasn't ready for this, since in 15 short years the republic was deposed by a new monarch.
The monarch himself was overextended - perhaps a characteristic of French people? - and was humiliated and defeated in 2 wars within 10 years of obtaining power. There followed inevitable political turmoil before the original monarchy finally could take power this time under a constitutional framework. However, within 20 years, the constitution was discarded and the monarchy became more absolute; at the first hint of economic issues the impetuous French people again deposed their rulers.
To the surprise of no-one who understood the perversions of the French mind, this state of affairs lasted 3 years, and a nephew of the previous monarch established himself on the throne as the autocrat. Like every French ruler before him (surely this condition is genetic?) he also started a pig-headed war against stronger neighbours and was duly rewarded with a huge defeat.
Now the Parisians showed they were indeed the heart of France - the distilled essence of the country's backwards thinking. They established a commune, destroyed businesses and ancient wealth and the church. Order was restored with a massacre in the capital, 2 months after this experiment began.
It seemed finally that the French had pushed something through their thick skulls, and the new constitutional order lasted for 70 years! However, towards the end, again the people responded to their material misery with demands of populism; the establishment of labour-friendly laws like minimum wage and limited working hours. Clearly the people were still too ignorant to realise that they weren't meant for this.
Enter the Nazi regime. In a role reversal, the French were occupied by their neighbours, who set up French-led government (perhaps this courtesy should never have been extended to these volatile people). They quickly reversed the unfeasible ideas about minimum wage and working limits, and re-introduced slavery. They also helped reduce the population, and were quick to massacre those who thought of rebelling (the various monarchs could have learnt a thing or two). Perhaps the genes responsible for the France's periodic rebellions were helpfully culled in these years. Magnanimously, the Nazis prepared detailed plans for government-controlled recovery and growth of the economy.
After the German-established French regime was replaced by a US/UK-established French regime, the new French leader in a welcome show of French humillity implemented the German plans. From 1945 to today, the French have seen fairly consistent rises in their standard of living, and no rebellions. Clearly the Nazi occupation, brief as it was, changed the French psyche for the better and even provided them with the economic planning they would never have managed on their own. There have been blips with the old anarchic spirt showing up in 1968, and in repeated strikes and shutdowns, but post Vichy, the French people have overall learned their lesson.
It is a tragedy that the majority of French people dislike the VIchy regime, and a historic crime that Germans are ashamed of their Nazi past. They should hold it in the same reverence that the British hold the Raj.
You keep talking as if what you say is actually true, when in reality you don't know what it is you're talking about.
At all.
Also - saying you're not racist, doesn't automatically mean that to be true, you are a racist. And an idiot, an ignorant idiot at that, possibly the worst combination you could have.
That's about the nicest and most polite thing I could ever say to you.
@Dumat12 On the topic of bringing western civilisation to Africa, weren't guns and alcohol traded for slaves? Which had a negative impact because they all started drinking and shooting each other?
Let's keep this thread a bit more grown up by avoiding the insults.
She (and I) have been incredibly restrained with Dumat12. I don't usually feel nationalistic or patriotic but I do when I see this apologia; I do hope the likes of Dumat suffer what my country suffered. \
Amazing that she has been pulled up for an incredibly benign (in comparison to what the poster she is responding to is trying to push) post.
I appreciate that Dumat's posts are long and stupid, but I think it's a bit of a piss take that mods have stepped in twice now to warn posters about how they speak to him rather than address the bile that he is posting and considering why he is getting the reactions he is.
Or is racism tolerated on this site as long as it is a bit more disguised than going around shouting the N-word at people?
The slightest personal description riles people more than apologia for mass murder and starvation of others.
The mods have stepped in because other posters are reporting specific posts where Dumat has been insulted by other posters.
sometimes you just gotta laugh.So is that a yes to my question then?
This isn't going anywhere is it. Just getting nasty. Surely time for a lock?
Racism isn't tolerated obviously. Why even ask such a question when you know the answer. Would you like us to ban Dumat so you feel better ?
Entirely by accident. The world powers, by and large, didn't give a feck about the Jews being massacred and of all the causes of the Second World War, liberating Jews from genocide was not one of them. Complete happenstance.
I'd like you to consider the context of why he's getting those responses rather than wade in and criticise the posters standing up to him or calling him what he is.
Whether you like it or not wading in to a conversation like that to criticise the posters calling him out and ignoring him gives the impression of acceptance.
In fact some even tolerated the Nazis because fascism as an ideology was seen as the lesser of two evils compared to communism. The pope and the catholic church were just one big institution to think this way, and the fallout after the war led to mass reform of the church.
- Status