Sweeslamistan

[Domen]

Western values are nothing but what Westerners live, and I think the picture is pretty grim if history has anything to say about it.

The most egalitarian, free and advanced societies were created by the European civilization, yet you claim that "the picture is pretty grim".

Still less grim than all other pictures. If the picture is pretty grim then why have refugees from all other parts of the world been coming here.

 

[aelf]

That was essentially his argument, and my response is that the West has exported intolerance and retrogression to other parts of the world, which goes some way to balance out the moral good they have achieved in their own societies.

 

[Domen]

the West has exported intolerance and retrogression to other parts of the world

This is completely false. Intolerance has always been in other parts of the world. And there was no any "West-caused" retrogression.

 

[aelf]

You obviously know nothing about colonial history and much of 20th century history.

 

[Ajidica]

This is completely false. Intolerance has always been in other parts of the world. And there was no any "West-caused" retrogression.

Off the top of my head, the Hutu/Tutsi issue only became a serious issue after the Belgians decided to favor the lighter skinned Tutsi at the expense of the majority Hutu in Rwanda when they pulled out.
Plus, the Belgians mucking about by instituting Western ideas and legal systems with regards to land ownership really fouled up the traditional system of land distribution and ownership. This land issue, coupled with an explosive population growth, and the (somewhat ironic, actually) Zairification attempts by Mobutu resulted in the Banyamulenge (among other tribal groups whose names I cannot remember for the life of me) in the Kivus developing a stronger cultural identity that formalized previously informal tribal divisions. This is one of the main reasons the Rwandan Genocide and the subsequent refugee crisis had such a large knock-on effect that resulted in the collapse of Zaire and Africa's World War.

EDIT: It turns out I got the wonky Belgian race theories wrong. They favored the Tutsi because their facial features were more in line with what the Belgians considered "European", and not to do with skin color. Thanks to luiz for pointing that out.

 

[Tigranes]

Also what's your point?

The point: when one tolerates the intolerance, the tolerance will no longer be tolerated. Which is intolerable.

 

[Domen]

You obviously know nothing about colonial history

And you obviously know nothing about colonial history of Muslim colonization and slavery in Africa:

"The death toll from 14 centuries of the Muslim slave trade in Africa is estimated at over 112 million. Historian Robert Davies estimates that North African Muslim pirates abducted and enslaved more than 1 million Europeans between 1530 and 1780."

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31E1gHowYcA#t=255

 

[Tigranes]

Off the top of my head, the Hutu/Tutsi issue only became a serious issue after the Belgians decided to favor the lighter skinned Tutsi at the expense of the majority Hutu in Rwanda when they pulled out.

How silly of you. What about Darfur genocide then? Light skinned Arabs killing darker skinned Sudanese?

 

[Domen]

English slavery in Ireland (an Irish slave was worth 1/10 of African slave's price):

Same source.

 

[Domen]

the lighter skinned Tutsi at the expense of the majority Hutu

What ??? Where the heck did you get this from? Tutsi are NOT lighter skinned than Hutu.

Tutsi composite faces (Tutsid anthropological type):

TUTSID (Tytsid): Dark pigmented and very high. Phenotype characteristic of Tutsis and Hema. Height: high and very high.

Hutu composite faces (Bantuid anthropological type):

BANTUID (Kafrid): The most common African Bantu expansion phenotype. Height: average, mesomorphic body.

Source: http://translate.google.com/transla.../www.xpomo.com/ruskolan/rasa/phenotype_02.htm

If anything, Tutsi appear to have slightly darker skin than Hutu.

 

[aelf]

And you obviously know nothing about colonial history of Muslim colonization and slavery in Africa:

"The death toll from 14 centuries of the Muslim slave trade in Africa is estimated at over 112 million. Historian Robert Davies estimates that North African Muslim pirates abducted and enslaved more than 1 million Europeans between 1530 and 1780."

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31E1gHowYcA#t=255

Whataboutery, eh?

 

[useless]

Doesn't matter, the Belgians still instigated differing treatment and ideas about the hutu's and tutsi's that would eventually climax with the Rwandan genocide.

 

[Tigranes]

When will people stop blaming East or West and realize that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God? Every single human has the pride issue. Has the us vs them issue. Has the hate issue. Racially superior Middle Country of China for ages seeing the rest of the world as uncivilized barbarian fringes? Age long contempt of Japanese towards Koreans? Castes in India? "And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush." Armenian genocide?

It is in human nature to make anything good -- murderous. Hate kills with any weapon and any excuse it can find. You invent machete for cutting crops -- hateful villager kills another villager. You invent anthropology as science to study humans -- hate uses it to justify the killings of Jews and Gypsies. New ideas and developments will come eventually visit every corner of the world, one way or another. Hate does not need to be exported via colonialism, it is right there in that corner and will burst one way or another.

If anything, Enlightenment did not start in Mesoamerica, or Indonesia, or Tibet. It did start in the West. Which again was used for the better or for the worse depending on the amount of the hate in the heart.

 

[luiz]

Off the top of my head, the Hutu/Tutsi issue only became a serious issue after the Belgians decided to favor the lighter skinned Tutsi at the expense of the majority Hutu in Rwanda when they pulled out.
Plus, the Belgians mucking about by instituting Western ideas and legal systems with regards to land ownership really fouled up the traditional system of land distribution and ownership. This land issue, coupled with an explosive population growth, and the (somewhat ironic, actually) Zairification attempts by Mobutu resulted in the Banyamulenge (among other tribal groups whose names I cannot remember for the life of me) in the Kivus developing a stronger cultural identity that formalized previously informal tribal divisions. This is one of the main reasons the Rwandan Genocide and the subsequent refugee crisis had such a large knock-on effect that resulted in the collapse of Zaire and Africa's World War.

You're right about your core point, the Belgians effed up the relation between Tutsis and Hutus by favoring the Tutsis based on some made-up racial theories. But the Tutsis are not more light skinned at all. They are said to have thinner noses and more East African features, which the Belgians identified with some European or Semitic ancestry, and so they would be "superior" to the Hutus. But they're just as dark, and indeed just as African.

 

[Ajidica]

Ah, thanks for that. I knew the Belgians considered the Tutsi more European than the Hutu, but I couldn't remember exactly why, so I sort of punted on that. Guess I punted wrong on that.

 

[Domen]

Arab / Muslim slavery in Africa was much worse than European slavery in Africa:

- many more millions of Africans enslaved
- much worse treatment of slaves
- a lot higher mortality of slaves
- earlier established, later abolished (in fact never abolished because slavery is still practiced in some parts of the Muslim World)

And North African Muslim pirates also enslaved hundreds of thousands of Christian Europeans.

Read about Mediterranean Muslim piracy and how those pirates were finally defeated during the late 18th and early 19th centuries.

 

[gay_Aleks]

But y'know, whites always do things better than Muslims.

 

[Domen]

When will people stop blaming East or West and realize that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God? Every single human has the pride issue. Has the us vs them issue. Has the hate issue. Racially superior Middle Country of China for ages seeing the rest of the world as uncivilized barbarian fringes? Age long contempt of Japanese towards Koreans? Castes in India? "And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush." Armenian genocide?

They can't realize this because this would mean the end to their politically correct leftist excuses on why the rest of the world is not as well developed as the West. Of course the usual explanation is because the West "caused retrogression" in the rest of the world by its evil deeds.

E.g. European slavery (but of course not Arab slavery - Arabs are also victims, not perpetrators) is to be blamed for the underdevelopment of Africa.

Funny that the very word slave is not of Sub-Saharan African but of Slavic origin*. But who cares about compensating people of the same skin color - according to leftists only Africans suffered from Western imperialism and only Jews were the victims of WW2, while those evil Polacks were Nazi perpetrators (funny that I lost several members of my "anti-Semitic Catholic" family in German concentration camps and mass executions in WW2).

*Ethnonym Slavs means either "speakers of the language" (from Slavic "slovo" - word), or "famous people" and "glorious people" (from Slavic "slava" - fame, glory; which is related to Sanskrit word "sravah" - meaning: famous, celebrated, glorious activities, greatly respected, etc.).

Sanskrit sravah: http://sanskritdictionary.org/sravah

Word slaves comes from ethnonym Slavs, not the other way around.

The origin of this is either because Slavs were very often (more often than others) being enslaved during that period when the word emerged, or because of Slavic exceptional treatment of their own slaves (Slavs lived in democracy and they did not keep their captives & war prisoners in perpetual slavery, but were offering their slaves to become free men and to be peacefully absorbed into Slavic societies - which was very uncommon for other peoples of the time):

Strategikon of Maurice:

"(...) The Slavs do not keep captives in perpetual slavery like other peoples, but demarcate for them a limited period of time, after which they give them choice - they can return home after purchasing their freedom, or stay among them as free people and friends. (...)"

Procopius of Caesarea:

"(...) For these peoples, the Slavs, are not ruled by one man, but they have lived since the ancient times under a democracy, and because of this both the profitable and the troublesome of their affairs are always dealt with among them as common. (...)"

 

[aelf]

Denial of the harm that colonialism caused should be as vilified as Holocaust denial. I won't be surprised if they go hand-in-hand in Poland, though.

 

[Domen]

In any case Muslim colonialism caused more harm and more deaths than European colonialism and European colonial genocides.

Apart from harm caused by European colonialism (especially in cases such as German or Belgian genocides), there were also benefits of it.

For example Black population of Rhodesia increased from 0,2 million to 4,5 million during 80 years of European colonial rules there.

The country was also modernized under British colonial rules, as this funny video illustrates:

Moderator Action: Racist video removed, infraction issued for major trolling
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889