Can only whites be racists and is Africa no place for whites?

[Senethro]

From the collapse of Rome through to the rise of the Spanish empire it was Europe getting invaded.

Humans gonna human.

So what?

 

[Patine]

You seemed very engaged in our discussion. Extremely so.

I wasn’t trying to limit anyone, I was trying to break the impasse met when you claimed that solutions and discussions are futile. I’d tried to move the subject onto solutions because when talking values I apparently came across to you as Genghis Stalin.

I didn't once say they were FUTILE. I said the circumstances you demanded them come up under were unrealistic and would not produce "solutions" - or anything really viable or realistic. And I AT LEAST three times listed the unrealistic limits you wanted "solutions" come up with under.

 

[Patine]

So what?

Because they're just White people being invaded. They don't matter, right? Only those who are conquered by Whites through "colonization" are worthy to be called "victims of conquest deserving justice?" Or am I incorrect? Because that is also what it seems like you've saying. And, somehow, it's not at all racist when you (or someone else) says such a thing.

 

[Senethro]

I didn't once say they were FUTILE. I said the circumstances you demanded them come up under were unrealistic and would not produce "solutions" - or anything really viable or realistic. And I AT LEAST three times listed the unrealistic limits you wanted "solutions" come up with under.

You seem to be saying that discussions and solutions are a synonym of futile in your post. Like, right there.

 

[Senethro]

Because they're just White people being invaded. They don't matter, right? Only those who are conquered by Whites through "colonization" are worthy to be called "victims of conquest deserving justice?" Or am I incorrect? Because that is also what it seems like you've saying. And, somehow, it's not at all racist when you (or someone else) says such a thing.

Nah, they’re all bad m8. No matter who does it to who or why.

But the racism of white people and European colonisation has had the greatest effect in people living in the present day and many of the governments/states involved can trace continuous existence to that era.

 

[Patine]

You seem to be saying that discussions and solutions are a synonym of futile in your post. Like, right there.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I have never said it once. But, what's starting to quickly become futile is getting anywhere with you with rational, reasonable, thought-out discourse. You seem to be unshakable from your ideological "script," like so many are today - whether that "script" is Social Liberal/Progressive, Social Conservative, Socialist, Nationalist, Libertarian, War Hawk, Corporatist, Green, or what have you. I myself have no such "script," my set of idiosyncratic and even eccentric socio-political beliefs are based on my candid and sober study of history, politics, and sociology, my work as a social worker, my sense of justice (broad-spanning and expansive justice, not the limited and biased version that favours some inherently over others you and others seem to have), and my view of the failings that all major socio-political factions have levied whenever they have been able. I am the quintessential political "Independent" and the "Classical Centrist" (not "Centrist" as often used purjoratively today by those further down one wing or another of the political spectrum).

 

[Senethro]

You seem to be unshakable from your ideological "script," like so many are today - whether that "script" is Social Liberal/Progressive, Social Conservative, Socialist, Nationalist, Libertarian, War Hawk, Corporatist, Green, or what have you. I myself have no such "script," my set of idiosyncratic and even eccentric socio-political beliefs are based on my candid and sober study of history, politics, and sociology, my work as a social worker, my sense of justice (broad-spanning and expansive justice, not the limited and biased version that favours some inherently over others you and others seem to have), and my view of the failings that all major socio-political factions have levied whenever they have been able. I am the quintessential political "Independent" and the "Classical Centrist" (not "Centrist" as often used purjoratively today by those further down one wing or another of the political spectrum).

Love me some good chestbeating self belief. Good on you.

 

[Patine]

Love me some good chestbeatung self belief. Good on you.

I'm not chestbeating at all. But I suppose, as being White, I'm obliged to engage in naught but guilt, humility, penitence, and self-loathing, for the many crimes I myself have never committed, had no hand in, and have not even personally witnessed, and have no pride, or even self-acknowledgement of ANY positive qualities I have or accomplishments I make. Is this your view, as well?

 

[Zardnaar]

Love me some good chestbeating self belief. Good on you.

Patine can be a bit nitpicky but his hearts in the right place and he is fairly consistent in his beliefs.

 

[Squonk]

1. Which is when South Africa was established under the rule of the Empire (though technically 1910 I guess, or 1934, depending on any particular meaning people want to apply to a governed state). The British rule prior to that was a) concerned with keeping trade options open and b) primarily focused on other colonial settlements (like the Dutch). Note: not in any way an excuse of their actions during this time.
2. I don't care about you claiming it makes no difference. You made an incorrect claim about how far in the past something occurred in order to diminish its relative importance to today. Your literaly argument was "it was centuries ago". It wasn't. Your reasoning was incorrect.

Nah, but your attempts to prove me wrong, while clearly twisting history and not being able to count, are amusing.
1) 1902 was not start of the British rule in South Africa. 1902 and the attack on Boers earlier was just expanding it, later dates had lesser significance too. The beginning of the British conquest of this region was 1795, or 1806, or 1815 (?), I don't know. In any case it's 224, 213 or 204 years. Do you know what that means? Oh, it's over 2 centuries in any case. And 2 centuries is still "centuries". So my statement was correct even if you apply it just to the British.
2) It was about white people in general. The Dutch happen to be mostly white too. So, well, at least from 1652. Hm, 367 years is "centuries" too, right? Or is it this "incorrect claim" you were referring to?

3. The law is primarily concerned with maintaining the established powers of the land. Would the British ever have created laws that didn't benefit their presence? One of their first acts after beating the Dutch was to outlaw the Dutch language! Your focus on the law, when the law was a) not observed by those conquering, and b) established by the conquerors following their historical successes, is incredibly flawed. You seem to be of the opinion that "the law" (without actually naming a law or the time period in which it was relevant) is some kind of absolute being.

Well, if you operate with words such as "theft" and "illegal", you must define them, and the law at this moment was the law of the colonial power, or, well, the law of the jungle, because there was no real international law yet back then. The problem is that you are trying to apply the laws of a grown up international society to the times of its infancy, when there was no law biding it. And one of the biggest rules of the law is that it doesn't apply back.

Like I said. A lot of this happened little more than a century ago. It's really not difficult to track back British ancestory that far. You seem to think it's this huge, unknowable problem. If it was centuries ago, with little reliable historical record, you'd have a point (in terms of correctly identifying descendants). But this isn't the case.

Oh no, you see, you are proving my point. If a lot of it was happening a little more than a century ago; if it's really not difficult to trace back ancestry so far... well, even more so, there's no reason whatsoever to make general racist laws directed against all whites for the benefit of all blacks. Thank you for adding to my point, you've been most useful.

You know, Patine, if you can't work out why a bunch of dudes with firearms shooting the heck out of people without said firearms, followed by either enslaving the local population or importing other slaves (from China, apparently, at least in some areas) is a different power dynamic to the relations between states who lacked this form of weaponry, maybe just admit you're not the expert you opine to be on the topic

Different power dynamic? So what? You can't blame one state of being more developed and more powerful than the other.

At least they came from the same bloomin' landmass! The Spanish didn't! The British didn't!

This is comedy gold. Next time someone tries to rape me or kill me, I'll ask her/him if she/he lives close enough to me for me to be more open-minded about it.
So, say, Russian conquest of Siberia was ok, because it's on the same landmass, while British conquest of Canada isn't, because it's on another continent, hm?

There's a huge difference between an invasion (culturally and logistically) separated by sea (and in some cases, literal tectonic plates)

Aren't you aware how silly this is? Tectonic plates mean nothing. Our concepts of the "continents" means almost nothing. Arabs moved from the Arabian tectonic plate in the 7th century and reached 3 other plates... I also guess Belize would rather live under the yoke of fellow continentoplateans, western Icelanders, than of those allien people of Honduras, and the people of Iceland, Japan or New Zealand must tremble when they go to the other side of their country, passing that great divide...The California, how do they even go on, being in reality 3 completely separate regions?

and internecine warfare amount states within a particular cultural group or bounded landmass. To take an example people might feel pressured to defend less (why people are defending European expansions into Africa by saying "look other African nations were this bad!" aside), look at the difference between the kingdoms of Ancient Egypt and subsequent invasions by the Romans (or even the Greek / Macedon, arguably).

Well, you can hardly distinguish, at least in Upper Egypt, the Ptolemaic temples from the more ancient ones in their general shapes. Still completely Egyptian. And in Roman times, Egypt was extremly influential outside. The monasticism invaded and conquered the empire from there, arianism and monophysite controversies came from there, and the patriarch of Antioch had almost the status of a pharaoh, with the officials sent by rome being able to do little, often, to curb their power.

PS: just to get a headstart, if you do in fact mean the Zulu reign, the British also subjugated them and broke apart their kingdom. Prior to the settling of the Second Boer War that lead to the union of South Africa.

No one's denying they were victims of the British too, the thing is that the pre-Zulu peoples were victims of the Zulu, and yet that doesn't seem to bother you at all.

And what is your alternative solution to ensure that people believe the SA state is acting in their interests, and not simply in the interests of property owners who, not by coincidence, look just like the previous racial overclass?

1) The white population is also "people"...
2) So people should lose their property because they look similar to someone who did something wrong some time ago? Hmmm, that's a great idea. An institutionalised frenologism....

I keep saying the people who work the land should own the land, without regard to race, but I have no doubt I will be accused of "making everything about race" in a few posts.

This is ludicrous... If it was about people working there, and not about rase, then well, the law should be like that - not mentioning the rase. And yes, you will be accused of "making everything about rase" indeed, mostly because of your earlier claim:
"In South Africa, the government should redistribute the land to black people (who are overwhelmingly the ones actually working it) without compensation. No white person has a legitimate claim to a square inch of land in South Africa, period."
In case you do not see the obvious racism of this, and the conflict between things you're saying, let me point out that you say: that black are working there overwhelmingly, and yet you say that no white person has a claim. So, unless you've ment that all the non-blacks working there are, say, Asian, you are fine with that the workers who are white will not get any part of the land, unlike their black co-workers. Moreover, you say that the land should be redistributed to BLACK people, so even if you didn't mean whites, than you still put blacks about anyone else. So no, in your very own words, you don't care about who's working there. You care for the colour of the skin. Which is completely racist.

No but it does mean chilling out when people are using the word "colonizer" on the internet.

You can say "colonizer" about the ones who were doing the colonizing,. About his descendants - no. You wouldn't call a son of a murderer a murderer, would you?

White people's claims can be traced back in all cases to theft, enslavement, genocide. Those claims are not legitimate. And before you go "aha, but all private property is like that" you should know I'm not really a fan of private property in general.

1) Well, as of yet, the private property exists and you have to work within its limits, unless you propose something better. So much I've seen from you, I do not expect you to come up with any cunning plan in this matter...
2) As I've mentioned, you continue to block all white people as the oppressors, all blacks as victims of blacks (in this field. This is not the case. First of all, some people bought lands from other white people in good faith, secondly, not necessarily all lands were settled before, thirdly, some of the black propriety can be attributed to massacres etc, and yet you don't mind that.

So black people should accept owning 20% of the land in a country where they make up 90% of the population because....it is okay to be punished because your ancestors were victims of crimes? Is that what you're saying?

How are they are getting punished? Not having something someone else has is not getting punished. it's the parliament which is supposed to be representative, not every ownership and every job. Although, I am all for, say, not electing any non-catholic USA president until the ratio of Catholic presidents rises to their ratio in the society.... Oh, and the same for women.

Again, it is the people working the land who should own it, regardless of race

This is a nice step forward from your earlier claims that no white has any legal claim, or that the land should be distributed among the black population...

Racism by white people is more significant across much of the world though, given that much of the current world order and demographics was built upon it. The insistence that other racisms are somehow equivalent in quantity or quality is not useful.

No-one claims that the other racisms are equal in quantity or quality... It's just that they are present, and that they are evil. Which doesn't seem to convince everybody.

I would've expected you at least had the wisdom to not equate the British Army with unarmed immigrants risking their lives crossing a border, buf oof. You sure did go there.

Not defending this comparison, but actually, going in a ship from Europe to South Africa in 17th, 18th, early 19th century was rishing life too...

If you don't understand the difference between, say, different Bantu subgroups going at each other vs. an established international power going at said Bantu, then perhaps you just don't know enough.

The point was, I believe, actually, Bantu attacking non-Bantu non-white peopulatoon... the indigenous one. And what's the difference if it's an international power or not? No, I don't get it. You don't get to be absolved from crimes based on your level of military development.

Par for the course for inferring people you disagree with are like Nazis or other white supremacists, Patine. It's disappointing, like Mary pointed out recently. You used to hate that kind of generalist grouping, but here you are using it against people at the slightest provocation.

I think he still does hate generalist grouping, and that's why he's ciriticising you. Because that's what you do, my dear.

 

[Gorbles]

At this point I think it's well-evidenced that you neither want debate, nor are you willing to back down on incorrect generalisations made.

You just want a platform to defend European imperialism, and you're happy to bait other people instead of actually engaging on the topic. Best of luck with that!

 

[Patine]

At this point I think it's well-evidenced that you neither want debate, nor are you willing to back down on incorrect generalisations made.

You just want a platform to defend European imperialism, and you're happy to bait other people instead of actually engaging on the topic. Best of luck with that!

I can't believe I just read that garbage, that accuses me saying absolutely nothing I've actually said, puts even more words in my mouth I haven't said, and makes these assumptions on bad stereotypes, by unthinking scripts, and to advance ideas and goals I'm not entirely adverse to - except in the much more extreme, unviable, revisionist, and constantly combative and accusatory form (often to a counter-productive and even self-sabotaging degree) more and more of it's proponents are moving towards nowadays. Please, show me a quote where I unequivocably and obviously, without word-twisting, defend European Imperialism. And show me what "incorrect generalizations" I keep making. To my knowledge, I've been more trying to correct those of @Senethro and others. And show me where I have said outright I have no intention AT ALL of debating. I want quotes from posts of MINE, that do not require blatant and overt malinterpretation and distortion of obvious meaning to back your point.

 

[Gorbles]

I can't believe I just read that garbage, that accuses me saying absolutely nothing I've actually said, puts even more words in my mouth I haven't said, and makes these assumptions on bad stereotypes, by unthinking scripts, and to advance ideas and goals I'm not entirely adverse to - except in the much more extreme, unviable, revisionist, and constantly combative and accusatory form (often to a counter-productive and even self-sabotaging degree) more and more of it's proponents are moving towards nowadays. Please, show me a quote where I unequivocably and obviously, without word-twisting, defend European Imperialism. And show me what "incorrect generalizations" I keep making. To my knowledge, I've been more trying to correct those of @Senethro and others. And show me where I have said outright I have no intention AT ALL of debating. I want quotes from posts of MINE, that do not require blatant and overt malinterpretation and distortion of obvious meaning to back your point.

Patine, I was responding to the post above mine, that quoted me extensively, and in no way did I tag or reference you.

 

[Patine]

Patine, I was responding to the post above mine, that quoted me extensively, and in no way did I tag or reference you.

I see. That wasn't clear when I made the post. I was used to sparring with @Senethro all day, and I'm fatigued and about to turn in to bed soon, so I did jump to a conclusion hastily there. I apologize for that mistake.

 

[Zardnaar]

At this point I think it's well-evidenced that you neither want debate, nor are you willing to back down on incorrect generalisations made.

You just want a platform to defend European imperialism, and you're happy to bait other people instead of actually engaging on the topic. Best of luck with that!

No one's defending imperialism but the people responsible are all dead.

I have spoken to older generation people who did live in the colonies and a few black or white have said life was better under the old regime. They couldn't vote but now their votes don't matter, violence is an issue and you don't have any food.

It's not like the USSR, Cuba etc flooded the area with weapons etc. We had Zulus washbup in small town NZ in the 80s a handful from Zimbabwe.

There's a reason they're in NZ though.

A lot of places did have whites leave. Unfortunately they were all of the engineers, teachers, adminstrators, doctors etc.

When you smash everything to bits it takes decades or generations to fix.
South Africa is in better shape than most of colonial Africa because they didn't smash everything to bits.

 

[Modder_Mode]

For those who don't fully understand the situation in Africa/South Africa or refuse to acknowledge what's really going on, try and comprehend that those charity ads on TV, Radio and in newspapers with starving and unhealthy kids and the concerts to end poverty etc. have been running since our parents were young, yes, that long and white western people who had absolutely nothing to do with genocide/invasions/land grabs have given more to these African countries via charities than ANYONE in history and NOTHINGS changed in all those years, billions upon billions of dollars have been donated and its the same story. MORE money has been pumped into Africa than ANYWHERE else on earth.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

How can you seriously claim that the descendents of those that committed the invasions, land grabbing and genocides have nothing to do with them? They're the people who have directly benefited from those actions historically.

Do you honestly believe that something like South African Apartheid was just a natural evolution of that society? No, it was imposed by the descendents of those that committed the above.

It's disengenuous as hell.

 

[Zardnaar]

How can you seriously claim that the descendents of those that committed the invasions, land grabbing and genocides have nothing to do with them? They're the people who have directly benefited from those actions historically.

Do you honestly believe that something like South African Apartheid was just a natural evolution of that society? No, it was imposed by the descendents of those that committed the above.

It's disengenuous as hell.

Kind of, they didn't do anything though except get born.

Violence has been used in innocent people, they turned the breadbasket of Africa into the basket case of Africa.

You yourself live in a country seized from someone else.

And you want to or have transitioned using techniques developed in those countries.

How far back do you want to go? What's the difference between Fascists making your life miserable and people with machetes going to farms that in a lot if cases didn't exist hundreds of years ago.

No one's claiming nothing should be done the chaos, carnage and murder is what we have issue with.

And then you starve your own people as agriculture collapses or the few productive farms are used to enrich party elites.

In South Africa innocent blacks got murdered by other blacks in mind violence by putting a car Tyre around their arms, poring petrol on it and set on fire.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

The comparisons aren't analogous; whites are a minority within South Africa and Zimbabwe, at this current stage even when Whites eventually become a minority in America, they people they originally stole the land from will be an even smaller minority, but the black population in make up the majority in South Africa and Zimbabwe.

There is certainly a need to expand the territory of the various native American tribes, as well as forms of reperations and extra funding, no one with any sort of working conscience and an actual brain can deny that much. It's too late to reverse the genocide committed upon them by whites, but we should do all we can to ameliorate their situation.

 

[Zardnaar]

The comparisons aren't analogous; whites are a minority within South Africa and Zimbabwe, at this current stage even when Whites eventually become a minority in America, they people they originally stole the land from will be an even smaller minority, but the black population in make up the majority in South Africa and Zimbabwe.

There is certainly a need to expand the territory of the various native American tribes, as well as forms of reperations and extra funding, no one with any sort of working conscience and an actual brain can deny that much. It's too late to reverse the genocide committed upon them by whites, but we should do all we can to ameliorate their situation.

Are you saying it's ok to persecute minorities?

No one's claiming don't help the native Americans out, here we integrated the Maori, reparations have been paid and it's an ongoing process.

They're still on the wrong side of all sorts of social stats.