|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 29 2019 01:56 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2019 01:43 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2019 01:09 IgnE wrote:On June 28 2019 23:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 23:21 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 23:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:58 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 22:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:24 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 22:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Outside of this forum I don't even use "white" any more, I use colonizer, settler, European, etc.. If white people born in America are colonizers then so are African Americans. Neither chose the place of their birth. It's people like me who leave Europe that you need to watch out for. Stolen people on stolen land is the phrasing I would use. There is a large contingent of Black people in the US that have adopted colonial ideologies though, skin color (or even the treatment that comes with it) isn't an inoculation to colonial ideologies. If it is possible for land to have an owner then who but the people who were born on the land and make use of it could possibly be that owner? Migration is a part of human society. The children of the migrants are no less entitled than the children of the other migrants who came a bit earlier. Historical ownership of wealth is a bit more tricky because the crimes of the father enrich the son. But as for the land itself, we all own it, or none of us do. We all own it, or none of us do, would be acceptable. Issue is, colonizers insist they own it, and no one else. The capitalists insist that only those with a deed own it, and that deed is traced back to the original crime. I’d be fine with the “colonizers” saying that the land belongs to all colonizers because that’s all of us. The problem here is dead people seizing the means of production from the people who generated the wealth and then granting their kids an exclusive right to it. You’re as much a colonizer of the US as any other born here. Indigenous people didn't replace anyone, so no they are not colonizers. The descendants of stolen people are not colonizers in the sense that decedents of the thieves are simply because we both reside here. But it's true that any just outcome requires amiable resolution with indigenous peoples that could include Black people leaving too. Were we to stay despite the protest of indigenous peoples you're right that we'd be no different (with consideration for circumstances) than descendants of Europeans colonialists. We think we could come to terms though, around the mutual expulsion of colonialists. You're right imo that as a recent immigrant your reluctant embrace of colonialism is different (and potentially more hazardous) than either. On June 28 2019 23:42 Sent. wrote:On June 28 2019 23:08 JimmiC wrote:
In many places in Canada we make a Aknowledgement Statement to recognize that we are residing on aboriginal land. The loval governments worked with the Elders in Open Call events and Round Table Discussions and was vetted through the Reconciliation Commitee's.
There is a short and long form, here is an example of the short "I would like to acknowledge that we are on
Blackfoot land and would like to give recognition to the Blackfoot people past, present and future."
And the long "The City of acknowledges that we
are gathered on the lands of the Blackfoot
people of the Canadian Plains and pays respect
to the Blackfoot people past, present and
future while recognizing and respecting their
cultural heritage, beliefs and relationship to the
land. The City of is also home to
the Metis Nation of Alberta, Region III."
I bring this up as the name does not matter so much it is the actions you take, and more than that the intention behind the actions you take. It is not calling it America that causes any issues, it is how the people that live their act and their intentions that does. I understand the intention, but isn't such acknowledgement a bigger insult to the descendants of former inhabitants of the area than saying it used to be controlled by tribe X before it was taken by Europeans? You're basically telling them the land is still theirs without doing anything about it. If it's really theirs, why don't "you" give it back? In the US we're trained to see meaningless acknowledgements as significant progress. “indigenous people didn’t replace anyone” says who? if you are familiar at all with the well-documented ancient histories of Eurasian migrations and (re)settlements you should be skeptical that indigenous American cultures going back thousands of years were irenic Ur-peoples sprung from the earth. even a basic familiarity with Aztec peoples should disabuse you of that notion. personally i think the unwarranted extension and reflexive application of “colonizer” and other aspects of postcolonial theory is some of the most uncritical, unhelpful thinking to emerge in recent popular leftism. The critical weak link in leftist anti-American theories -- whether it be this colonialism nonsense or the argument that America is foundationally evil because it legalized slavery on its founding -- is their complete lack of historical perspective. Human history is a history of warfare and cultural/national genocide. Multiculturalism as a value has been around for roughly 2 minutes, and it is only valued in some segments of the Western world. The biggest irony is that these leftists fail to understand that the Western order that they seek to destroy is precisely what has enabled them to exist in the first place. It's all quite insane. “I benefited from prior genocides and therefore I should not criticize ongoing and future genocides” is not a great argument. You can acknowledge that the Western world was built on exploitation and human misery without drawing the conclusion that those are the secret ingredient needed if we want it to survive.
I'd argue you can't (particularly as xDaunt but others as well understand it) and look forward to seeing you make this argument.
|
History doesn’t contain any special ingredients for anything other than historical analysis.
|
On June 29 2019 01:58 farvacola wrote:
History doesn’t contain any special ingredients for anything other than historical analysis.
I wouldn't actually use the term "special/secret ingredients" but I would say the exploitation and human misery is inextricable from the perpetuation of the "Western world" as most people in the west envision it.
|
United States41989 Posts
On June 29 2019 01:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2019 01:56 KwarK wrote:On June 29 2019 01:43 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2019 01:09 IgnE wrote:On June 28 2019 23:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 23:21 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 23:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:58 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 22:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:24 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
If white people born in America are colonizers then so are African Americans. Neither chose the place of their birth. It's people like me who leave Europe that you need to watch out for. Stolen people on stolen land is the phrasing I would use. There is a large contingent of Black people in the US that have adopted colonial ideologies though, skin color (or even the treatment that comes with it) isn't an inoculation to colonial ideologies. If it is possible for land to have an owner then who but the people who were born on the land and make use of it could possibly be that owner? Migration is a part of human society. The children of the migrants are no less entitled than the children of the other migrants who came a bit earlier. Historical ownership of wealth is a bit more tricky because the crimes of the father enrich the son. But as for the land itself, we all own it, or none of us do. We all own it, or none of us do, would be acceptable. Issue is, colonizers insist they own it, and no one else. The capitalists insist that only those with a deed own it, and that deed is traced back to the original crime. I’d be fine with the “colonizers” saying that the land belongs to all colonizers because that’s all of us. The problem here is dead people seizing the means of production from the people who generated the wealth and then granting their kids an exclusive right to it. You’re as much a colonizer of the US as any other born here. Indigenous people didn't replace anyone, so no they are not colonizers. The descendants of stolen people are not colonizers in the sense that decedents of the thieves are simply because we both reside here. But it's true that any just outcome requires amiable resolution with indigenous peoples that could include Black people leaving too. Were we to stay despite the protest of indigenous peoples you're right that we'd be no different (with consideration for circumstances) than descendants of Europeans colonialists. We think we could come to terms though, around the mutual expulsion of colonialists. You're right imo that as a recent immigrant your reluctant embrace of colonialism is different (and potentially more hazardous) than either. On June 28 2019 23:42 Sent. wrote:On June 28 2019 23:08 JimmiC wrote:
In many places in Canada we make a Aknowledgement Statement to recognize that we are residing on aboriginal land. The loval governments worked with the Elders in Open Call events and Round Table Discussions and was vetted through the Reconciliation Commitee's.
There is a short and long form, here is an example of the short "I would like to acknowledge that we are on
Blackfoot land and would like to give recognition to the Blackfoot people past, present and future."
And the long "The City of acknowledges that we
are gathered on the lands of the Blackfoot
people of the Canadian Plains and pays respect
to the Blackfoot people past, present and
future while recognizing and respecting their
cultural heritage, beliefs and relationship to the
land. The City of is also home to
the Metis Nation of Alberta, Region III."
I bring this up as the name does not matter so much it is the actions you take, and more than that the intention behind the actions you take. It is not calling it America that causes any issues, it is how the people that live their act and their intentions that does. I understand the intention, but isn't such acknowledgement a bigger insult to the descendants of former inhabitants of the area than saying it used to be controlled by tribe X before it was taken by Europeans? You're basically telling them the land is still theirs without doing anything about it. If it's really theirs, why don't "you" give it back? In the US we're trained to see meaningless acknowledgements as significant progress. “indigenous people didn’t replace anyone” says who? if you are familiar at all with the well-documented ancient histories of Eurasian migrations and (re)settlements you should be skeptical that indigenous American cultures going back thousands of years were irenic Ur-peoples sprung from the earth. even a basic familiarity with Aztec peoples should disabuse you of that notion. personally i think the unwarranted extension and reflexive application of “colonizer” and other aspects of postcolonial theory is some of the most uncritical, unhelpful thinking to emerge in recent popular leftism. The critical weak link in leftist anti-American theories -- whether it be this colonialism nonsense or the argument that America is foundationally evil because it legalized slavery on its founding -- is their complete lack of historical perspective. Human history is a history of warfare and cultural/national genocide. Multiculturalism as a value has been around for roughly 2 minutes, and it is only valued in some segments of the Western world. The biggest irony is that these leftists fail to understand that the Western order that they seek to destroy is precisely what has enabled them to exist in the first place. It's all quite insane. “I benefited from prior genocides and therefore I should not criticize ongoing and future genocides” is not a great argument. You can acknowledge that the Western world was built on exploitation and human misery without drawing the conclusion that those are the secret ingredient needed if we want it to survive. I'd argue you can't (particularly as xDaunt but others as well understand it) and look forward to seeing you make this argument.
The modern world was also built on coal which, as a source of cheap energy from the ground, was exploited just as much as human capital was exploited. But that does not mean we can’t use our current wealth, technology, and understanding to transition to nuclear energy.
Same reasoning applies. Hell, society used to be built on the exploitation of animal labour but that didn’t make the transition to mechanical labour any less of an advancement.
|
On June 29 2019 02:11 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2019 01:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 29 2019 01:56 KwarK wrote:On June 29 2019 01:43 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2019 01:09 IgnE wrote:On June 28 2019 23:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 23:21 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 23:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:58 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 22:48 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Stolen people on stolen land is the phrasing I would use. There is a large contingent of Black people in the US that have adopted colonial ideologies though, skin color (or even the treatment that comes with it) isn't an inoculation to colonial ideologies. If it is possible for land to have an owner then who but the people who were born on the land and make use of it could possibly be that owner? Migration is a part of human society. The children of the migrants are no less entitled than the children of the other migrants who came a bit earlier. Historical ownership of wealth is a bit more tricky because the crimes of the father enrich the son. But as for the land itself, we all own it, or none of us do. We all own it, or none of us do, would be acceptable. Issue is, colonizers insist they own it, and no one else. The capitalists insist that only those with a deed own it, and that deed is traced back to the original crime. I’d be fine with the “colonizers” saying that the land belongs to all colonizers because that’s all of us. The problem here is dead people seizing the means of production from the people who generated the wealth and then granting their kids an exclusive right to it. You’re as much a colonizer of the US as any other born here. Indigenous people didn't replace anyone, so no they are not colonizers. The descendants of stolen people are not colonizers in the sense that decedents of the thieves are simply because we both reside here. But it's true that any just outcome requires amiable resolution with indigenous peoples that could include Black people leaving too. Were we to stay despite the protest of indigenous peoples you're right that we'd be no different (with consideration for circumstances) than descendants of Europeans colonialists. We think we could come to terms though, around the mutual expulsion of colonialists. You're right imo that as a recent immigrant your reluctant embrace of colonialism is different (and potentially more hazardous) than either. On June 28 2019 23:42 Sent. wrote:On June 28 2019 23:08 JimmiC wrote:
In many places in Canada we make a Aknowledgement Statement to recognize that we are residing on aboriginal land. The loval governments worked with the Elders in Open Call events and Round Table Discussions and was vetted through the Reconciliation Commitee's.
There is a short and long form, here is an example of the short "I would like to acknowledge that we are on
Blackfoot land and would like to give recognition to the Blackfoot people past, present and future."
And the long "The City of acknowledges that we
are gathered on the lands of the Blackfoot
people of the Canadian Plains and pays respect
to the Blackfoot people past, present and
future while recognizing and respecting their
cultural heritage, beliefs and relationship to the
land. The City of is also home to
the Metis Nation of Alberta, Region III."
I bring this up as the name does not matter so much it is the actions you take, and more than that the intention behind the actions you take. It is not calling it America that causes any issues, it is how the people that live their act and their intentions that does. I understand the intention, but isn't such acknowledgement a bigger insult to the descendants of former inhabitants of the area than saying it used to be controlled by tribe X before it was taken by Europeans? You're basically telling them the land is still theirs without doing anything about it. If it's really theirs, why don't "you" give it back? In the US we're trained to see meaningless acknowledgements as significant progress. “indigenous people didn’t replace anyone” says who? if you are familiar at all with the well-documented ancient histories of Eurasian migrations and (re)settlements you should be skeptical that indigenous American cultures going back thousands of years were irenic Ur-peoples sprung from the earth. even a basic familiarity with Aztec peoples should disabuse you of that notion. personally i think the unwarranted extension and reflexive application of “colonizer” and other aspects of postcolonial theory is some of the most uncritical, unhelpful thinking to emerge in recent popular leftism. The critical weak link in leftist anti-American theories -- whether it be this colonialism nonsense or the argument that America is foundationally evil because it legalized slavery on its founding -- is their complete lack of historical perspective. Human history is a history of warfare and cultural/national genocide. Multiculturalism as a value has been around for roughly 2 minutes, and it is only valued in some segments of the Western world. The biggest irony is that these leftists fail to understand that the Western order that they seek to destroy is precisely what has enabled them to exist in the first place. It's all quite insane. “I benefited from prior genocides and therefore I should not criticize ongoing and future genocides” is not a great argument. You can acknowledge that the Western world was built on exploitation and human misery without drawing the conclusion that those are the secret ingredient needed if we want it to survive. I'd argue you can't (particularly as xDaunt but others as well understand it) and look forward to seeing you make this argument. The modern world was also built on coal which, as a source of cheap energy from the ground, was exploited just as much as human capital was exploited. But that does not mean we can’t use our current wealth, technology, and understanding to transition to nuclear energy. Same reasoning applies. Hell, society used to be built on the exploitation of animal labour but that didn’t make the transition to mechanical labour any less of an advancement.
I also find "people did bad things in the past, thus we need to keep on doing bad things" supremely depressing as a position. I acknowledges no possibility of every getting out of the "people do bad things" circle. Maybe i am too much of an optimist, but i generally like the idea that the future can be made better than the past.
|
On June 29 2019 02:16 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2019 02:11 KwarK wrote:On June 29 2019 01:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 29 2019 01:56 KwarK wrote:On June 29 2019 01:43 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2019 01:09 IgnE wrote:On June 28 2019 23:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 23:21 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 23:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:58 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
If it is possible for land to have an owner then who but the people who were born on the land and make use of it could possibly be that owner?
Migration is a part of human society. The children of the migrants are no less entitled than the children of the other migrants who came a bit earlier. Historical ownership of wealth is a bit more tricky because the crimes of the father enrich the son. But as for the land itself, we all own it, or none of us do. We all own it, or none of us do, would be acceptable. Issue is, colonizers insist they own it, and no one else. The capitalists insist that only those with a deed own it, and that deed is traced back to the original crime. I’d be fine with the “colonizers” saying that the land belongs to all colonizers because that’s all of us. The problem here is dead people seizing the means of production from the people who generated the wealth and then granting their kids an exclusive right to it. You’re as much a colonizer of the US as any other born here. Indigenous people didn't replace anyone, so no they are not colonizers. The descendants of stolen people are not colonizers in the sense that decedents of the thieves are simply because we both reside here. But it's true that any just outcome requires amiable resolution with indigenous peoples that could include Black people leaving too. Were we to stay despite the protest of indigenous peoples you're right that we'd be no different (with consideration for circumstances) than descendants of Europeans colonialists. We think we could come to terms though, around the mutual expulsion of colonialists. You're right imo that as a recent immigrant your reluctant embrace of colonialism is different (and potentially more hazardous) than either. On June 28 2019 23:42 Sent. wrote:On June 28 2019 23:08 JimmiC wrote:
In many places in Canada we make a Aknowledgement Statement to recognize that we are residing on aboriginal land. The loval governments worked with the Elders in Open Call events and Round Table Discussions and was vetted through the Reconciliation Commitee's.
There is a short and long form, here is an example of the short "I would like to acknowledge that we are on
Blackfoot land and would like to give recognition to the Blackfoot people past, present and future."
And the long "The City of acknowledges that we
are gathered on the lands of the Blackfoot
people of the Canadian Plains and pays respect
to the Blackfoot people past, present and
future while recognizing and respecting their
cultural heritage, beliefs and relationship to the
land. The City of is also home to
the Metis Nation of Alberta, Region III."
I bring this up as the name does not matter so much it is the actions you take, and more than that the intention behind the actions you take. It is not calling it America that causes any issues, it is how the people that live their act and their intentions that does. I understand the intention, but isn't such acknowledgement a bigger insult to the descendants of former inhabitants of the area than saying it used to be controlled by tribe X before it was taken by Europeans? You're basically telling them the land is still theirs without doing anything about it. If it's really theirs, why don't "you" give it back? In the US we're trained to see meaningless acknowledgements as significant progress. “indigenous people didn’t replace anyone” says who? if you are familiar at all with the well-documented ancient histories of Eurasian migrations and (re)settlements you should be skeptical that indigenous American cultures going back thousands of years were irenic Ur-peoples sprung from the earth. even a basic familiarity with Aztec peoples should disabuse you of that notion. personally i think the unwarranted extension and reflexive application of “colonizer” and other aspects of postcolonial theory is some of the most uncritical, unhelpful thinking to emerge in recent popular leftism. The critical weak link in leftist anti-American theories -- whether it be this colonialism nonsense or the argument that America is foundationally evil because it legalized slavery on its founding -- is their complete lack of historical perspective. Human history is a history of warfare and cultural/national genocide. Multiculturalism as a value has been around for roughly 2 minutes, and it is only valued in some segments of the Western world. The biggest irony is that these leftists fail to understand that the Western order that they seek to destroy is precisely what has enabled them to exist in the first place. It's all quite insane. “I benefited from prior genocides and therefore I should not criticize ongoing and future genocides” is not a great argument. You can acknowledge that the Western world was built on exploitation and human misery without drawing the conclusion that those are the secret ingredient needed if we want it to survive. I'd argue you can't (particularly as xDaunt but others as well understand it) and look forward to seeing you make this argument. The modern world was also built on coal which, as a source of cheap energy from the ground, was exploited just as much as human capital was exploited. But that does not mean we can’t use our current wealth, technology, and understanding to transition to nuclear energy. Same reasoning applies. Hell, society used to be built on the exploitation of animal labour but that didn’t make the transition to mechanical labour any less of an advancement. I also find "people did bad things in the past, thus we need to keep on doing bad things" supremely depressing as a position. I acknowledges no possibility of every getting out of the "people do bad things" circle. Maybe i am too much of an optimist, but i generally like the idea that the future can be made better than the past.
It's important to make a distinction between what you're lamenting and what I'm arguing as well as addressing Kwark's argument.
I'm saying you can't have the benefits of exploitation and human suffering without the exploitation and human suffering, not that we can't get out of a circle of "people do bad things, therefore we'll always do bad things" (that's actually xDaunt and Kwarks position).
Kwark has somewhat inexplicably (in relation to his general position of empathetic futility) proffered the position that there is, at least in theory, a way to extricate the human suffering and exploitation from the system/world built on them while preserving the benefits of that system.
I disagree.
Here's what he argues:
The modern world was also built on coal which, as a source of cheap energy from the ground, was exploited just as much as human capital was exploited. But that does not mean we can’t use our current wealth, technology, and understanding to transition to nuclear energy.
Same reasoning applies. Hell, society used to be built on the exploitation of animal labour but that didn’t make the transition to mechanical labour any less of an advancement.
Clearly this accepts exploitation as inseparable, so presumably the challenge is only on "human suffering" for which he doesn't offer a resolution theoretical or practical.
|
On June 29 2019 01:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2019 01:56 KwarK wrote:On June 29 2019 01:43 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2019 01:09 IgnE wrote:On June 28 2019 23:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 23:21 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 23:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:58 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 22:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:24 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
If white people born in America are colonizers then so are African Americans. Neither chose the place of their birth. It's people like me who leave Europe that you need to watch out for. Stolen people on stolen land is the phrasing I would use. There is a large contingent of Black people in the US that have adopted colonial ideologies though, skin color (or even the treatment that comes with it) isn't an inoculation to colonial ideologies. If it is possible for land to have an owner then who but the people who were born on the land and make use of it could possibly be that owner? Migration is a part of human society. The children of the migrants are no less entitled than the children of the other migrants who came a bit earlier. Historical ownership of wealth is a bit more tricky because the crimes of the father enrich the son. But as for the land itself, we all own it, or none of us do. We all own it, or none of us do, would be acceptable. Issue is, colonizers insist they own it, and no one else. The capitalists insist that only those with a deed own it, and that deed is traced back to the original crime. I’d be fine with the “colonizers” saying that the land belongs to all colonizers because that’s all of us. The problem here is dead people seizing the means of production from the people who generated the wealth and then granting their kids an exclusive right to it. You’re as much a colonizer of the US as any other born here. Indigenous people didn't replace anyone, so no they are not colonizers. The descendants of stolen people are not colonizers in the sense that decedents of the thieves are simply because we both reside here. But it's true that any just outcome requires amiable resolution with indigenous peoples that could include Black people leaving too. Were we to stay despite the protest of indigenous peoples you're right that we'd be no different (with consideration for circumstances) than descendants of Europeans colonialists. We think we could come to terms though, around the mutual expulsion of colonialists. You're right imo that as a recent immigrant your reluctant embrace of colonialism is different (and potentially more hazardous) than either. On June 28 2019 23:42 Sent. wrote:On June 28 2019 23:08 JimmiC wrote:
In many places in Canada we make a Aknowledgement Statement to recognize that we are residing on aboriginal land. The loval governments worked with the Elders in Open Call events and Round Table Discussions and was vetted through the Reconciliation Commitee's.
There is a short and long form, here is an example of the short "I would like to acknowledge that we are on
Blackfoot land and would like to give recognition to the Blackfoot people past, present and future."
And the long "The City of acknowledges that we
are gathered on the lands of the Blackfoot
people of the Canadian Plains and pays respect
to the Blackfoot people past, present and
future while recognizing and respecting their
cultural heritage, beliefs and relationship to the
land. The City of is also home to
the Metis Nation of Alberta, Region III."
I bring this up as the name does not matter so much it is the actions you take, and more than that the intention behind the actions you take. It is not calling it America that causes any issues, it is how the people that live their act and their intentions that does. I understand the intention, but isn't such acknowledgement a bigger insult to the descendants of former inhabitants of the area than saying it used to be controlled by tribe X before it was taken by Europeans? You're basically telling them the land is still theirs without doing anything about it. If it's really theirs, why don't "you" give it back? In the US we're trained to see meaningless acknowledgements as significant progress. “indigenous people didn’t replace anyone” says who? if you are familiar at all with the well-documented ancient histories of Eurasian migrations and (re)settlements you should be skeptical that indigenous American cultures going back thousands of years were irenic Ur-peoples sprung from the earth. even a basic familiarity with Aztec peoples should disabuse you of that notion. personally i think the unwarranted extension and reflexive application of “colonizer” and other aspects of postcolonial theory is some of the most uncritical, unhelpful thinking to emerge in recent popular leftism. The critical weak link in leftist anti-American theories -- whether it be this colonialism nonsense or the argument that America is foundationally evil because it legalized slavery on its founding -- is their complete lack of historical perspective. Human history is a history of warfare and cultural/national genocide. Multiculturalism as a value has been around for roughly 2 minutes, and it is only valued in some segments of the Western world. The biggest irony is that these leftists fail to understand that the Western order that they seek to destroy is precisely what has enabled them to exist in the first place. It's all quite insane. “I benefited from prior genocides and therefore I should not criticize ongoing and future genocides” is not a great argument. You can acknowledge that the Western world was built on exploitation and human misery without drawing the conclusion that those are the secret ingredient needed if we want it to survive. I'd argue you can't (particularly as xDaunt but others as well understand it) and look forward to seeing you make this argument.
xDaunt’s post is chauvinistic and not to be admired, but he raises two good points: 1) a lot of popular leftist discourse is willfully ignorant or neglectful of history leaving itself vulnerable to quick dismissal by those not in the choir — even putting aside my philosophical issues with this, this is just bad politics in my view 2) there is something special about “the west” right? it was the first world historical culture to become self-reflexive in some meaningful sense
|
On June 29 2019 02:28 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2019 01:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 29 2019 01:56 KwarK wrote:On June 29 2019 01:43 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2019 01:09 IgnE wrote:On June 28 2019 23:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 23:21 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 23:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:58 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 22:48 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Stolen people on stolen land is the phrasing I would use. There is a large contingent of Black people in the US that have adopted colonial ideologies though, skin color (or even the treatment that comes with it) isn't an inoculation to colonial ideologies. If it is possible for land to have an owner then who but the people who were born on the land and make use of it could possibly be that owner? Migration is a part of human society. The children of the migrants are no less entitled than the children of the other migrants who came a bit earlier. Historical ownership of wealth is a bit more tricky because the crimes of the father enrich the son. But as for the land itself, we all own it, or none of us do. We all own it, or none of us do, would be acceptable. Issue is, colonizers insist they own it, and no one else. The capitalists insist that only those with a deed own it, and that deed is traced back to the original crime. I’d be fine with the “colonizers” saying that the land belongs to all colonizers because that’s all of us. The problem here is dead people seizing the means of production from the people who generated the wealth and then granting their kids an exclusive right to it. You’re as much a colonizer of the US as any other born here. Indigenous people didn't replace anyone, so no they are not colonizers. The descendants of stolen people are not colonizers in the sense that decedents of the thieves are simply because we both reside here. But it's true that any just outcome requires amiable resolution with indigenous peoples that could include Black people leaving too. Were we to stay despite the protest of indigenous peoples you're right that we'd be no different (with consideration for circumstances) than descendants of Europeans colonialists. We think we could come to terms though, around the mutual expulsion of colonialists. You're right imo that as a recent immigrant your reluctant embrace of colonialism is different (and potentially more hazardous) than either. On June 28 2019 23:42 Sent. wrote:On June 28 2019 23:08 JimmiC wrote:
In many places in Canada we make a Aknowledgement Statement to recognize that we are residing on aboriginal land. The loval governments worked with the Elders in Open Call events and Round Table Discussions and was vetted through the Reconciliation Commitee's.
There is a short and long form, here is an example of the short "I would like to acknowledge that we are on
Blackfoot land and would like to give recognition to the Blackfoot people past, present and future."
And the long "The City of acknowledges that we
are gathered on the lands of the Blackfoot
people of the Canadian Plains and pays respect
to the Blackfoot people past, present and
future while recognizing and respecting their
cultural heritage, beliefs and relationship to the
land. The City of is also home to
the Metis Nation of Alberta, Region III."
I bring this up as the name does not matter so much it is the actions you take, and more than that the intention behind the actions you take. It is not calling it America that causes any issues, it is how the people that live their act and their intentions that does. I understand the intention, but isn't such acknowledgement a bigger insult to the descendants of former inhabitants of the area than saying it used to be controlled by tribe X before it was taken by Europeans? You're basically telling them the land is still theirs without doing anything about it. If it's really theirs, why don't "you" give it back? In the US we're trained to see meaningless acknowledgements as significant progress. “indigenous people didn’t replace anyone” says who? if you are familiar at all with the well-documented ancient histories of Eurasian migrations and (re)settlements you should be skeptical that indigenous American cultures going back thousands of years were irenic Ur-peoples sprung from the earth. even a basic familiarity with Aztec peoples should disabuse you of that notion. personally i think the unwarranted extension and reflexive application of “colonizer” and other aspects of postcolonial theory is some of the most uncritical, unhelpful thinking to emerge in recent popular leftism. The critical weak link in leftist anti-American theories -- whether it be this colonialism nonsense or the argument that America is foundationally evil because it legalized slavery on its founding -- is their complete lack of historical perspective. Human history is a history of warfare and cultural/national genocide. Multiculturalism as a value has been around for roughly 2 minutes, and it is only valued in some segments of the Western world. The biggest irony is that these leftists fail to understand that the Western order that they seek to destroy is precisely what has enabled them to exist in the first place. It's all quite insane. “I benefited from prior genocides and therefore I should not criticize ongoing and future genocides” is not a great argument. You can acknowledge that the Western world was built on exploitation and human misery without drawing the conclusion that those are the secret ingredient needed if we want it to survive. I'd argue you can't (particularly as xDaunt but others as well understand it) and look forward to seeing you make this argument. xDaunt’s post is chauvinistic and not to be admired, but he raises two good points: 1) a lot of popular leftist discourse is willfully ignorant or neglectful of history leaving itself vulnerable to quick dismissal by those not in the choir — even putting aside my philosophical issues with this, this is just bad politics in my view 2) there is something special about “the west” right? it was the first world historical culture to become self-reflexive in some meaningful sense
I'll bite.
1) yup, they'd quickly dismiss it regardless though.
2) Plenty, but like xDaunt's post I'd say it's "chauvinistic and not to be admired"
|
I read this:
You can acknowledge that the Western world was built on exploitation and human misery without drawing the conclusion that those are the secret ingredient needed if we want it to survive.
As
"You can acknowledge that there was exploitation and human misery in the past, without getting to the conclusion that it needs to be there in the future to survive"
Thus my reaction. I think you might have read it as
"You can acknowledge that there was exploitation and human misery in the past without the need to feel bad about profiting from it now"
I honestly do not know which of the two interpretations Kwark meant to say.
|
United States41989 Posts
The first. We shouldn’t cover up the sins of our fathers but nor should we mistake them for virtue.
|
|
|
On June 29 2019 02:32 Simberto wrote:I read this: Show nested quote +You can acknowledge that the Western world was built on exploitation and human misery without drawing the conclusion that those are the secret ingredient needed if we want it to survive. As "You can acknowledge that there was exploitation and human misery in the past, without getting to the conclusion that it needs to be there in the future to survive" Thus my reaction. I think you might have read it as "You can acknowledge that there was exploitation and human misery in the past without the need to feel bad about profiting from it now" I honestly do not know which of the two interpretations Kwark meant to say.
It doesn't need to be there in the future to survive in GH's argument. It needs to be there in the future to maintain certain aspects of our lifestyle tho. The idea isn't that it's impossible to not do bad things, the idea is that it's impossible to have what we have and to maintain what we have at the same level without the bad things.
|
On June 29 2019 02:32 Simberto wrote:I read this: Show nested quote +You can acknowledge that the Western world was built on exploitation and human misery without drawing the conclusion that those are the secret ingredient needed if we want it to survive. As "You can acknowledge that there was exploitation and human misery in the past, without getting to the conclusion that it needs to be there in the future to survive" Thus my reaction. I think you might have read it as "You can acknowledge that there was exploitation and human misery in the past without the need to feel bad about profiting from it now" I honestly do not know which of the two interpretations Kwark meant to say.
The key in that interpretation is how we interpret survive.
What does that mean? Survive like Les Stroud in the wilderness or do you mean something else? If it's the former I think it's obvious I don't disagree, the rub is in the latter.
On June 29 2019 02:40 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2019 02:32 Simberto wrote:I read this: You can acknowledge that the Western world was built on exploitation and human misery without drawing the conclusion that those are the secret ingredient needed if we want it to survive. As "You can acknowledge that there was exploitation and human misery in the past, without getting to the conclusion that it needs to be there in the future to survive" Thus my reaction. I think you might have read it as "You can acknowledge that there was exploitation and human misery in the past without the need to feel bad about profiting from it now" I honestly do not know which of the two interpretations Kwark meant to say. It doesn't need to be there in the future to survive in GH's argument. It needs to be there in the future to maintain certain aspects of our lifestyle tho. The idea isn't that it's impossible to not do bad things, the idea is that it's impossible to have what we have and to maintain what we have at the same level without the bad things.
Yes, this.
|
United States41989 Posts
On June 29 2019 02:40 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2019 02:32 Simberto wrote:I read this: You can acknowledge that the Western world was built on exploitation and human misery without drawing the conclusion that those are the secret ingredient needed if we want it to survive. As "You can acknowledge that there was exploitation and human misery in the past, without getting to the conclusion that it needs to be there in the future to survive" Thus my reaction. I think you might have read it as "You can acknowledge that there was exploitation and human misery in the past without the need to feel bad about profiting from it now" I honestly do not know which of the two interpretations Kwark meant to say. It doesn't need to be there in the future to survive in GH's argument. It needs to be there in the future to maintain certain aspects of our lifestyle tho. The idea isn't that it's impossible to not do bad things, the idea is that it's impossible to have what we have and to maintain what we have at the same level without the bad things.
Why though? In the past we needed to be dicks to horses to produce an agricultural surplus. Now we don’t. Technology is the one area where by increasing the size of the pie we can increase the equity of the division without taking food off of anyone’s plate. We’re not doing that because some people seem to be infinitely hungry but there’s no reason to believe that a more equitable division of a pie must necessarily result in less pie for us. The pie is growing exponentially and has been for centuries. It’s a colossal pie now.
|
On June 29 2019 02:46 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2019 02:40 Nebuchad wrote:On June 29 2019 02:32 Simberto wrote:I read this: You can acknowledge that the Western world was built on exploitation and human misery without drawing the conclusion that those are the secret ingredient needed if we want it to survive. As "You can acknowledge that there was exploitation and human misery in the past, without getting to the conclusion that it needs to be there in the future to survive" Thus my reaction. I think you might have read it as "You can acknowledge that there was exploitation and human misery in the past without the need to feel bad about profiting from it now" I honestly do not know which of the two interpretations Kwark meant to say. It doesn't need to be there in the future to survive in GH's argument. It needs to be there in the future to maintain certain aspects of our lifestyle tho. The idea isn't that it's impossible to not do bad things, the idea is that it's impossible to have what we have and to maintain what we have at the same level without the bad things. Why though? In the past we needed to be dicks to horses to produce an agricultural surplus. Now we don’t. Technology is the one area where by increasing the size of the pie we can increase the equity of the division without taking food off of anyone’s plate. We’re not doing that because some people seem to be infinitely hungry but there’s no reason to believe that a more equitable division of a pie must necessarily result in less pie for us. The pie is growing exponentially and has been for centuries. It’s a colossal pie now.
We can do the math and we don't have the resources to maintain western lifestyles for the rest of the world even if we miraculously put the energy sector out of business with essentially unlimited surplus. I think we can achieve and maintain totally reasonable equity and sustainable lifestyle, what we can't do (at least before shit hits the fan) is make this lifestyle (the ones most would consider basic in the west) sustainable and scalable to the global population.
From a practical sense you can't have people with thousands of times the amount of wealth of others without exploitation and undue suffering no matter how big the pie gets
|
On June 29 2019 00:16 Dromar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2019 23:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Andrew Yang:
a. I don't know how Yang was supposed to explain how to pay for his entire pseudo-UBI plan in a single opening blurb, and I don't think it landed. Also, the moderator's initial and follow-up question seemed to be borderline-derisive. Regardless, Yang didn't do a good job of making his ideas sound appealing or believable, so ignoring what I already know about him and have seen from him, I think in this specific instance, his opening only gets a 2.5/5.
b. Bro, you gonna talk at all? You were offered very little air time through moderator questioning (which is bullshit), but you gotta fight for your right to talk on the main stage by interjecting.
c. Tonight was your chance to make your presence known. You didn't. Can't just blame the moderators for not offering you questions, especially when the other candidates were able to interject when they wanted.
d. Closing statement was nice, but it was too little, too late.
It sounds like his mic had been turned off for part of the debate. There are times you can see him start talking to try to get some words in, and candidates even turn to him as he does so, but you can't hear him speak.
I was initially surprised to not hear his voice in much of the vocal melee. But reviewing the video, it does look like Yang is telling the truth about the mic. One clip follows.
I hope he gets a better chance to draw contrasts with other candidates in July. Also, hopefully he survives to less crowded debate stages, but that's unlikely.
|
On June 29 2019 02:32 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2019 02:28 IgnE wrote:On June 29 2019 01:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 29 2019 01:56 KwarK wrote:On June 29 2019 01:43 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2019 01:09 IgnE wrote:On June 28 2019 23:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 23:21 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 23:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:58 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
If it is possible for land to have an owner then who but the people who were born on the land and make use of it could possibly be that owner?
Migration is a part of human society. The children of the migrants are no less entitled than the children of the other migrants who came a bit earlier. Historical ownership of wealth is a bit more tricky because the crimes of the father enrich the son. But as for the land itself, we all own it, or none of us do. We all own it, or none of us do, would be acceptable. Issue is, colonizers insist they own it, and no one else. The capitalists insist that only those with a deed own it, and that deed is traced back to the original crime. I’d be fine with the “colonizers” saying that the land belongs to all colonizers because that’s all of us. The problem here is dead people seizing the means of production from the people who generated the wealth and then granting their kids an exclusive right to it. You’re as much a colonizer of the US as any other born here. Indigenous people didn't replace anyone, so no they are not colonizers. The descendants of stolen people are not colonizers in the sense that decedents of the thieves are simply because we both reside here. But it's true that any just outcome requires amiable resolution with indigenous peoples that could include Black people leaving too. Were we to stay despite the protest of indigenous peoples you're right that we'd be no different (with consideration for circumstances) than descendants of Europeans colonialists. We think we could come to terms though, around the mutual expulsion of colonialists. You're right imo that as a recent immigrant your reluctant embrace of colonialism is different (and potentially more hazardous) than either. On June 28 2019 23:42 Sent. wrote:On June 28 2019 23:08 JimmiC wrote:
In many places in Canada we make a Aknowledgement Statement to recognize that we are residing on aboriginal land. The loval governments worked with the Elders in Open Call events and Round Table Discussions and was vetted through the Reconciliation Commitee's.
There is a short and long form, here is an example of the short "I would like to acknowledge that we are on
Blackfoot land and would like to give recognition to the Blackfoot people past, present and future."
And the long "The City of acknowledges that we
are gathered on the lands of the Blackfoot
people of the Canadian Plains and pays respect
to the Blackfoot people past, present and
future while recognizing and respecting their
cultural heritage, beliefs and relationship to the
land. The City of is also home to
the Metis Nation of Alberta, Region III."
I bring this up as the name does not matter so much it is the actions you take, and more than that the intention behind the actions you take. It is not calling it America that causes any issues, it is how the people that live their act and their intentions that does. I understand the intention, but isn't such acknowledgement a bigger insult to the descendants of former inhabitants of the area than saying it used to be controlled by tribe X before it was taken by Europeans? You're basically telling them the land is still theirs without doing anything about it. If it's really theirs, why don't "you" give it back? In the US we're trained to see meaningless acknowledgements as significant progress. “indigenous people didn’t replace anyone” says who? if you are familiar at all with the well-documented ancient histories of Eurasian migrations and (re)settlements you should be skeptical that indigenous American cultures going back thousands of years were irenic Ur-peoples sprung from the earth. even a basic familiarity with Aztec peoples should disabuse you of that notion. personally i think the unwarranted extension and reflexive application of “colonizer” and other aspects of postcolonial theory is some of the most uncritical, unhelpful thinking to emerge in recent popular leftism. The critical weak link in leftist anti-American theories -- whether it be this colonialism nonsense or the argument that America is foundationally evil because it legalized slavery on its founding -- is their complete lack of historical perspective. Human history is a history of warfare and cultural/national genocide. Multiculturalism as a value has been around for roughly 2 minutes, and it is only valued in some segments of the Western world. The biggest irony is that these leftists fail to understand that the Western order that they seek to destroy is precisely what has enabled them to exist in the first place. It's all quite insane. “I benefited from prior genocides and therefore I should not criticize ongoing and future genocides” is not a great argument. You can acknowledge that the Western world was built on exploitation and human misery without drawing the conclusion that those are the secret ingredient needed if we want it to survive. I'd argue you can't (particularly as xDaunt but others as well understand it) and look forward to seeing you make this argument. xDaunt’s post is chauvinistic and not to be admired, but he raises two good points: 1) a lot of popular leftist discourse is willfully ignorant or neglectful of history leaving itself vulnerable to quick dismissal by those not in the choir — even putting aside my philosophical issues with this, this is just bad politics in my view 2) there is something special about “the west” right? it was the first world historical culture to become self-reflexive in some meaningful sense I'll bite. 1) yup, they'd quickly dismiss it regardless though. 2) Plenty, but like xDaunt's post I'd say it's "chauvinistic and not to be admired"
See this is where talking about complex, composite objects breaks down. When I said, “it was the first world historical culture to become reflexive” you kind of understood what I meant. I was referring to a liminally sketched network of thinkers, writings, and institutions that emerged in Europe for the first time. Now you are saying “the West” is “chauvinistic and not to be admired.” Yes, that’s a fair way to describe it under certain narrative conditions, but given that the focus of the conversation so far has been on the emergence of a self-reflexivity that is the very condition of possibility for your making a critique of it at this time and in this fashion, it just feels like you are missing the point. Both Adam Smith and Marx are products of the West. You also are a product of “the West,” and yet you are not all bad. Indeed there are some aspects of you that are admirable right? So regarding this question, we must reckon with the fact that “the West” has in many ways created the very condition of possibility for the “emancipation” you seek.
|
United States41989 Posts
On June 29 2019 02:53 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2019 02:46 KwarK wrote:On June 29 2019 02:40 Nebuchad wrote:On June 29 2019 02:32 Simberto wrote:I read this: You can acknowledge that the Western world was built on exploitation and human misery without drawing the conclusion that those are the secret ingredient needed if we want it to survive. As "You can acknowledge that there was exploitation and human misery in the past, without getting to the conclusion that it needs to be there in the future to survive" Thus my reaction. I think you might have read it as "You can acknowledge that there was exploitation and human misery in the past without the need to feel bad about profiting from it now" I honestly do not know which of the two interpretations Kwark meant to say. It doesn't need to be there in the future to survive in GH's argument. It needs to be there in the future to maintain certain aspects of our lifestyle tho. The idea isn't that it's impossible to not do bad things, the idea is that it's impossible to have what we have and to maintain what we have at the same level without the bad things. Why though? In the past we needed to be dicks to horses to produce an agricultural surplus. Now we don’t. Technology is the one area where by increasing the size of the pie we can increase the equity of the division without taking food off of anyone’s plate. We’re not doing that because some people seem to be infinitely hungry but there’s no reason to believe that a more equitable division of a pie must necessarily result in less pie for us. The pie is growing exponentially and has been for centuries. It’s a colossal pie now. We can do the math and we don't have the resources to maintain western lifestyles for the rest of the world even if we miraculously put the energy sector out of business with essentially unlimited surplus. I think we can achieve and maintain totally reasonable equity and sustainable lifestyle, what we can't do (at least before shit hits the fan) is make this lifestyle (the ones most would consider basic in the west) sustainable and scalable to the global population. From a practical sense you can't have people with thousands of times the amount of wealth of others without exploitation and undue suffering no matter how big the pie gets
Hi there Malthus.
I mean sure, there’s the issue of environmental collapse but that’s happening whether or not we redistribute the proceeds of human productivity. But from a theoretical point of view there’s no reason why western lifestyle improvement couldn’t be decelerated so that the proceeds from the growing of the pie closed the gap between the west and the rest. After all, the population of the west has already accepted a near total deceleration of improvement in order to let Bezos have it all. If the people of the west are unwilling to accept anything but endless forward progression to infinity then why are so many of them so fucking poor. We could continue the current trends for 99.99% of people in the west and bring the rest of the world up if we gave the rest of the world the surplus that is currently going to a handful of people.
The problem isn’t the greed of westerners, there’s enough even after accounting for that. It’s the distribution of the increases in the size of the pie. And the environmental collapse too obviously but that’ll give us a fun new kind of Mad Max equality.
|
“History is what hurts, it is what refuses desire and sets inexorable limits to individual as well as collective praxis…”
To which I would add that “the West” is what cannot be ignored, the contingent manifestation of History at this time. There is no other place to go to. No before to which we can return.
|
On June 29 2019 03:09 IgnE wrote:
“History is what hurts, it is what refuses desire and sets inexorable limits to individual as well as collective praxis…”
To which I would add that “the West” is what cannot be ignored, the contingent manifestation of History at this time. There is no other place to go to. No before to which we can return.
Bravo!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
