|
Post by largeham on Aug 30, 2011 7:30:33 GMT -5
What you see as a negative consequence, people of the time sincerely percieved as either positive consequences, or a negative that was countered by the massive positives in other areas. I highly doubt the native Americans thought colonialism was a positive in any period of history.
|
|
|
Post by scotsgit on Aug 30, 2011 8:37:09 GMT -5
This stinks of Niall Ferguson. There's nothing wrong with Prof Ferguson, I agree with a lot of what he says, in particular how WWII was won in the East not the West.
|
|
|
Post by scotsgit on Aug 30, 2011 8:44:59 GMT -5
I'm not judging the people by modern cultural standards, merely saying that it was still a shitty situation for the indigenous peoples regardless of differing social values and what was "fair for its time", as well as acknowledging that our ancestors' actions had negative consequences that we still see today. Depends which indigineous peoples you're talking about: In many cases, arrival of the Colonial powers improved the lot of many of the native peoples. Take, for example, India. There you have the suppression of the Thugee cult (which is still held responsible for the largest number of deaths by any group), the introduction of the education system, improved health (one commentator was later to point out that after the arrival of the British, people in India lived longer and healthier lives than those in the East End of London [source: Lord Longford who, along with Nye Bevan, helped create the Welfare State]). The British also stopped other practices, such as suttee, the practice in Hinduism whereby a bride had to join her dead husband on his funeral pyre, regardless of whether she was dead or not. The Colonial powers did a lot that, even by the standards of the time could be seen (by some anyway) as wrong, but none were out and out 'evil'.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Aug 30, 2011 10:35:18 GMT -5
I've never said that the colonists were all evil bastards, nor am I speculating about their mindset, nor have I stated that every single consequence of colonialism was negative. I'm merely acknowledging (with the use of hindsight, obviously) that our ancestors weren't perfect, and that some of their actions did have negative consequences. Saying, "In retrospect, we should have done some things differently," isn't the same thing as condemning them or their mindset.
And isn't that kind of what we're supposed to do when confronted with history? Use our ability to view events utilizing hindsight to identify the mistakes of the past, and apply that knowledge towards avoiding a repeat performance?
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Aug 30, 2011 12:41:06 GMT -5
What you see as a negative consequence, people of the time sincerely percieved as either positive consequences, or a negative that was countered by the massive positives in other areas. I highly doubt the native Americans thought colonialism was a positive in any period of history. I sincerely disagree, considering the number of native Americans that engaged in various forms of colonialism and outright enslavement of other native Americans and their territory.
|
|
|
Post by Old Viking on Aug 30, 2011 17:41:27 GMT -5
The British talk funny.
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Aug 30, 2011 18:19:20 GMT -5
I've never said that the colonists were all evil bastards, nor am I speculating about their mindset, nor have I stated that every single consequence of colonialism was negative. I'm merely acknowledging (with the use of hindsight, obviously) that our ancestors weren't perfect, and that some of their actions did have negative consequences. Saying, "In retrospect, we should have done some things differently," isn't the same thing as condemning them or their mindset. And isn't that kind of what we're supposed to do when confronted with history? Use our ability to view events utilizing hindsight to identify the mistakes of the past, and apply that knowledge towards avoiding a repeat performance? Precisely. It is only by learning from history that we can avoid repeating it. Genocide is, has been, and always will be the Baddest of Bad Things.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Aug 31, 2011 4:15:20 GMT -5
I've never said that the colonists were all evil bastards, nor am I speculating about their mindset, nor have I stated that every single consequence of colonialism was negative. I'm merely acknowledging (with the use of hindsight, obviously) that our ancestors weren't perfect, and that some of their actions did have negative consequences. Saying, "In retrospect, we should have done some things differently," isn't the same thing as condemning them or their mindset. And isn't that kind of what we're supposed to do when confronted with history? Use our ability to view events utilizing hindsight to identify the mistakes of the past, and apply that knowledge towards avoiding a repeat performance? Precisely. It is only by learning from history that we can avoid repeating it. Genocide is, has been, and always will be the Baddest of Bad Things. Only from a Western, post industrialist liberal democracy mindset.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Aug 31, 2011 4:31:06 GMT -5
I think his point is that genocide has always caused unfathomable suffering, regardless of mindset.
|
|
|
Post by largeham on Aug 31, 2011 19:37:44 GMT -5
I highly doubt the native Americans thought colonialism was a positive in any period of history. I sincerely disagree, considering the number of native Americans that engaged in various forms of colonialism and outright enslavement of other native Americans and their territory. I'm not saying that the Native Americans lived in some sort of peaceful paradise, however that does not mean they would have looked upon European (maybe I should have specified that) colonialism favourably. If say the Qing dynasty or Mughal India had managed to conquer Europe in the 18th/19th centuries (yes I know it would have been impossible, just stick with the example) and slaughtered millions of Europeans to subdue the population, just because the Europeans had colonised large parts of the world, slaughtered millions of the native population and had been fighting amongst themselves for centuries does not excuse the genocide perpetrated by the Qing or Mughals.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Aug 31, 2011 23:55:01 GMT -5
How about this? Can we at least agree this is pretty much evil?
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Aug 31, 2011 23:59:44 GMT -5
I think his point is that genocide has always caused unfathomable suffering, regardless of mindset. Of course. But, depending on your ethics, causing unfathomable suffering isn't necessarily "evil". I know that sounds strange, but consider, for a moment, prison. I'm pretty confident when I say that putting people in maximum security prisons for long stretches of time causes pretty unfathomable suffering too, but you won't find many modern Westerners who would call the prison concept "evil". I would suggest that people committing genocide probably relate to their role in the causing of others to suffer in a very similar way that modern Westerners relate to causing people to suffer in prison. In broad terms.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Sept 1, 2011 0:09:12 GMT -5
I sincerely disagree, considering the number of native Americans that engaged in various forms of colonialism and outright enslavement of other native Americans and their territory. I'm not saying that the Native Americans lived in some sort of peaceful paradise, however that does not mean they would have looked upon European (maybe I should have specified that) colonialism favourably. If say the Qing dynasty or Mughal India had managed to conquer Europe in the 18th/19th centuries (yes I know it would have been impossible, just stick with the example) and slaughtered millions of Europeans to subdue the population, just because the Europeans had colonised large parts of the world, slaughtered millions of the native population and had been fighting amongst themselves for centuries does not excuse the genocide perpetrated by the Qing or Mughals. Its not about "excusing" anything. The point is, that it is a pointless exercise to condemn the Qing, or the Mughals, or the Mongols, or the Huns, or the Turks, or the 17th-18thC European colonial powers based on modern sensibilities, since those people didn't HAVE modern sensibilities. They were doing what was right for them in the context of their individual time, place, culture and history. To condemn the Aztecs (really, I think the best example) for their actions is similar to condemning a tiger for what it does to its prey. From OUR point of view, what the tiger does seems unnecessary and cruel (because from our point of view, if you want meat, you go to the supermarket and buy humanely slaughtered butchered meat in hygenically sealed packaging) but the tiger doesn't have that point of view. He's just doing what he does. So too the great atrocities of history. The Aztecs, Mongels, Huns, Romans et al, didn't engage in their bloody excesses because they were evil, they did it because, in THEIR CONTEXT, it was appropriate. In OUR context, obviously, they are grossly inappropriate. The point, the huge point, that people so readily forget, is that the only thing that makes OUR context "special" is that its ours'. Other than that, there is no reason to expect our context to be universally accepted, nor to think that it is somehow better, more "right" than anyone else's. Not for a moment am I suggesting that any of the persecuted peoples of history enjoyed or deserved what happened to them. Just that their tormentors believed what they were doing was right, for their own internally consistent reasons and beliefs. To expect them to conform to OUR internally consistent beliefs is simple cultural arrogance.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Sept 1, 2011 0:12:34 GMT -5
How about this? Can we at least agree this is pretty much evil? Can we agree that there is a difference between isolated examples of extreme mental disturbance and the social and cultural norms of entire civilisations? In OUR context, this guy's actions are evil. In the context of the Aztecs or Druidic Celts? His actions are almost commonplace. Now... since this guy belongs to our culture, yes, "evil" (or at least, mentally disturbed). However, that does not make the Aztecs or Celts evil, per se, since they do NOT belong to our culture, and have a different perspective on such things.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 1, 2011 0:34:56 GMT -5
I think his point is that genocide has always caused unfathomable suffering, regardless of mindset. Of course. But, depending on your ethics, causing unfathomable suffering isn't necessarily "evil". I know that sounds strange, but consider, for a moment, prison. I'm pretty confident when I say that putting people in maximum security prisons for long stretches of time causes pretty unfathomable suffering too, but you won't find many modern Westerners who would call the prison concept "evil". I would suggest that people committing genocide probably relate to their role in the causing of others to suffer in a very similar way that modern Westerners relate to causing people to suffer in prison. In broad terms. I get what you're saying, but the point is about the actions, not the people who performed them. Since the dawn of time, pain and suffering have been considered bad, at least for the person enduring them. Since we as a society understand this, we should strive to avoid repeating our ancestors actions.
|
|