Great picture.
Should white people feel guility?
-
So paying reperations to the decendents of former slaves (mostly working Americans) would make whites feel less guilty, while 3rd world continues the way it is. I think I’m lost here…
-
There’s one part missing there, I don’t think that most whites feel guilty about slavery. :roll:
@F_alk:
Which choice?
The choice to work there or not.
-
There’s one part missing there, I don’t think that most whites feel guilty about slavery
Guilty… but not to the extend of handing out reperations I bet.
-
It might be important for the question of “guilt of the whites”
But Falk, you yourself said the entire Western Society is at fault from this. That includes many people other than whites, including blacks, hispanics, asians, Indians, native americans, etc. Whites are not the only ones who perpetuate slavery, be it the “slavery” of today, or the slavery of the past. It is like you said, the Western Society as a whole.
-
@TG:
So paying reperations to the decendents of former slaves (mostly working Americans) would make whites feel less guilty, while 3rd world continues the way it is. I think I’m lost here…
Ahm… seems like i misread your posting a bit. But somehow, i can still stand to what i said:
Once we pay reparations to former slaves + descendants, we are obliged to rethink what we do/ allow today. Thus, the only economically “smart” consequence is not to pay former slaves and their descendants.But Falk, you yourself said the entire Western Society is at fault from this. That includes many people other than whites, including blacks, hispanics, asians, Indians, native americans, etc. Whites are not the only ones who perpetuate slavery, be it the “slavery” of today, or the slavery of the past. It is like you said, the Western Society as a whole.
Well, i think you put a few of those who suffered from western opression into the opressors role.
If we destroy a culture and octroate (sp?) our system onto them, are they then guilty? A tricky question. The only answer i can give is that it makes us even mor guilty and responsible.@Deviant:Scripter:
@F_alk:
Which choice?
The choice to work there or not.
What are the alternatives? What is the result of choosing not to work there?
And something interesting for all conservatives and christians:
Some large land owners of Brazil have protested against the occupation of 13.2 kha by landless rural workers. These workers belong to the MST organisation, which had illegally occupied other lands (those 1,500 workers were evicted though). All this is done with support of some US churches, an open letter expressing support was published during the Conference the National Council of US Churches.
The protest was an unsigned pamphlet, telling three ways how to assasinate those workers. It says: “These rats need to be exterminated. It will be painful, but strong remedies are necessary for big illnesses. People of São Gabriel, do not permit our city to be defiled and stained by the deformed and dirty feet of this human scum. It is necessary that blood pours to show our courage.”For those who are actually interested in this one case, read:
http://www.brazzil.com/2003/html/news/articles/jul03/p107jul03.htm
a link list of things happening in Brasil:
http://www.oneworld.org/sejup/land.htm -
This is reminiscent of the peasant’s revolution in Germany in the late 1500’s.
Brazil is weird. I havn’t heard of hit squads put out on children these days, but i know it has happened in the past.
As for “US churches” - there is no telling what these “Christians” actually do and believe. There are several “churches” which are merely fronts for Klan organizations.
Really F_alk. I could use almost any institution for nefarious purposes. -
Well, i think you put a few of those who suffered from western opression into the opressors role.
Other people then whites work at companys who you may accuse of slavery today, and other people then whites reap the benefits that they have on our economy.
Blacks in Africa originally sold their fellow Blacks into slavery, even working for the Europeans, because money was more important to them. Blacks are not simply the opressed.
If we destroy a culture and octroate (sp?) our system onto them, are they then guilty
No culture was destroyed, it still exists in Africa (not justifying the forced indoctrination of blacks into our culture) not all blacks descend from slaves, some came over later, of their own will. they were not opressed, no culture forced on them.
-
Well, i think you put a few of those who suffered from western opression into the opressors role.
If we destroy a culture and octroate (sp?) our system onto them, are they then guilty? A tricky question. The only answer i can give is that it makes us even mor guilty and responsible.But did you ever stop to realize, that people of their own culture/race, played the opressors role onto their ownselves?
-
If we destroy a culture and octroate (sp?) our system onto them, are they then guilty
No culture was destroyed, it still exists in Africa (not justifying the forced indoctrination of blacks into our culture) not all blacks descend from slaves, some came over later, of their own will. they were not opressed, no culture forced on them.
That again is talking of US slavery only. My answer was aiming at you mentioning Indians, Native Americans, Hispanics etc. You try to put it back onto Africa only, as there some relics of their former cultures have survived. I guess it comes from a different view on what is “western soceity”. During the time the US had slavery, the western society had no non-caucasian in there. Today is different, of course, but then we should look at the reasons and development of that too.
For destroying no cultures:
I don’t think you could say that of Middle and South America. Even though there we didn’t pick up that many slaves (probably the natives there were no good material, or already baptized when slavery became “hip”).@TG:
But did you ever stop to realize, that people of their own culture/race, played the opressors role onto their ownselves?
Good, now name one non-european-roots culture (that is non-US, non-european) that has enslaved europeans, that has opressed us caucasians.
Sure, caucasians have enslaved caucasians. Blacks have enslaved blacks (although AFAIR it was some kind of time-limited slavery as a form of punishment and retribution mainly), Asians had slavery etc.
But only we enslaved not only us, but all others as well.
For a culture that did not opress itself, have a look the australian Aboriginies. They even did not have the concept of “owning”. -
Good, now name one non-european-roots culture (that is non-US, non-european) that has enslaved europeans, that has opressed us caucasians.
Sure, caucasians have enslaved caucasians. Blacks have enslaved blacks (although AFAIR it was some kind of time-limited slavery as a form of punishment and retribution mainly), Asians had slavery etc.The Hun Empire, only tribute from the Romans prevented them from become conquered slaves like the Germans were.
-
@TG:
The Hun Empire, only tribute from the Romans prevented them from become conquered slaves like the Germans were.
Somewhat true. There were 75 years, from 375 to 450 AD, were the huns pressed on europe.
But, if you look for Huns, who were nomads, as slaveholders, you probably will rather find them treat their conquered people like Ammianus Marcellinus writes in his ROman History, book 31, chapter 3.
“Igitur Huni pervasis Halanorum regionibus, quos Greuthungis confines Tanaitas consuetudo nominavit, interfectisque multis et spoliatis reliquos sibi concordandi fide pacta iunxerunt eisque adhibitis confidentius Errnenrichi late patentes er uberes pagos repentino impetu perruperunt, bellicosissimi regis et per multa variaque fortiter facta vicinis nationibus formidati.”
They looted and plundered, and then forced treaties onto the beaten people. Slavery is not directly mentioned, maybe because it is part of looting for a Roman.
It’s hard to tell. More important is the when and for how long if you look for effects. But, you are right, there were other cultures oppressing cuacasians. The effect of that (apart from starting the great movement of people and thus the fall of rome etc.), so the direct effect i would think is neglectable, compared to the indirect effect (as the merging of germanic and roman culture, thus setting the way for christianity and the Holy Roman Empire, and all that follows). -
The main reason why I think other countries didn’t take advantage of the Europeans was due to technology. From 1300 onward, the Europeans had a great boon in technology - moreso military technology and the applications of it (esp. in naval combat). If other civilizations had access to this sort of technology before the Europeans did, I think a many would go about conquering other counteries and enslaving them.
-
i know that i would :)
-
In 1300 Europe was about third in technology. The muslim world still was stronger, and i would also take the chinese as more advanced. The latter being a good example of not trying to get the whole world, with everything outside China being considered as barbaric. They had one Emperor who forced exploration and oversea trade, but that was limited to a short time.
-
@F_alk:
i would also take the chinese as more advanced. The latter being a good example of not trying to get the whole world, with everything outside China being considered as barbaric.
So then you advocate their policy of forced, extreme isolationism? Not to mention their extreme xenophobia.
-
Well, it is too late for that anyway…
-
In 1300 Europe was about third in technology. The muslim world still was stronger, and i would also take the chinese as more advanced. The latter being a good example of not trying to get the whole world, with everything outside China being considered as barbaric. They had one Emperor who forced exploration and oversea trade, but that was limited to a short time.
Muslims also went about trying to conquer European territory (see Ottoman Empire), though you could say this was for fear of Christianity. As for the Chinese, yes, they were very advanced (and remained a dominant power until about 1700), though they lacked a strong, advanced navy do much conquering (and the fact that they were also facing a host of internal conflicts and barbarian tribes.
-
well, as to the chinese navy, they had a reasonably advanced one, as there has been evidence uncovered that they may have been the first settlers (discounting the Vikings and Native Americans) of North America, in 1421, as well as the first to circumnavigate the globe. Theres an interesting book on the subject, titled 1421, that you should check out for further information.
-
well, as to the chinese navy, they had a reasonably advanced one, as there has been evidence uncovered that they may have been the first settlers (discounting the Vikings and Native Americans) of North America, in 1421, as well as the first to circumnavigate the globe.
Yes, I read about that too. Though I was thinking more on the lines of cannons.
-
o, well in that case, i have no idea
Suggested Topics
