Tipote said:

qman said:

I really don't see the analogy you're trying to establish, European colonialism was a dominate form of foreign policy that benefited their homelands.  This has NOTHING to do with Africans and Muslims fleeing their homelands to become social leeches into the Western world.

---

The point is that you seem so easily able to see how foreign people are "leaching" from Western countries but you seem to not have come to terms with the reality that Europeans leached from colonial subjects' countries, over hundreds of years.

Quote:

One is a form of domination, the other one is a form of desperation, big difference.

---

I agree! But to be clear- you are saying that it is colonialism that is domination, and refugee migration which is desperation.. right?

---

Bigbadwooof said:

qman said:

Tipote said:

Well many countries had different opportunities at different times. Apparently, the Europeans were particularly successful at Empire and brought African Empires to collapse. Part of the reason European powers went there in the first place (started with Belgium) was that African Empires were so successful and wealthy.

---

Did you ever ask yourself how "so successful and wealthy" African Empires were brought to collapse?

---

He explained exactly why in his post. They were not as focused on military. Tipote is actually completely correct. Europeans had been warring with each other for a century. They were far more advanced militarily.

---

Tipote said:

Bubbles85 said:

It seems that Tipote will resort to any means necessary, as a way to try to justify mass Third World immigration into the developed world.

---

can you show me where I have tried to justify mass third world immigration in general?

---

This constant back tracking through European history, to try to show how awful Western culture has been to the rest of the World, combined with a cross reference to the current situations surrounding, immigration/Muslims/refugee's in the same posts, makes your position come across that way.

Tipote said:

The only thing that I've said I supported is accepting refugees in a highly managed way as this is an urgent humanitarian situation. I've said before that I'm not in favour of mass immigration in general but I am not against immigration.

---

Excellent, then you sound like the perfect candidate for a leave vote in the EU referendum and a UKIP vote in the next general election ...

qman said:

Bigbadwooof said:

Quote:

qman said:
Did you ever ask yourself how "so successful and wealthy" African Empires were brought to collapse?

---

He explained exactly why in his post. They were not as focused on military. Tipote is actually completely correct. Europeans had been warring with each other for a century. They were far more advanced militarily.

---

"They were not as focused on military"

Yet they were constantly fighting each other on their own continent, your statement doesn't make sense.

"They were far more advanced militarily"

And in every other aspect of civilization, why was that?

---

Quote:

The moral of this story is that war by even the most isolated indigenous peoples is not “traditional.” While the decision to go to war is made by local actors, the fights are in response to changes coming from the outside world. The same goes for the recent large-scale “tribal” and “ethnic” violence in Africa, Central Asia, the former Yugoslavia, and elsewhere. In all of these cases conflict has been shaped by outside global processes, from colonial policies that froze formerly fluid ethnic groups and then used artificial borders to divide them, to crashing international commodity markets that made poor nations poorer, to well-meaning non-governmental organizations that provided aid that was misappropriated by men with guns.

---

Bubbles85 said:

Tipote said:

Bubbles85 said:

It seems that Tipote will resort to any means necessary, as a way to try to justify mass Third World immigration into the developed world.

---

can you show me where I have tried to justify mass third world immigration in general?

---

This constant back tracking through European history, to try to show how awful Western culture has been to the rest of the World, combined with a cross reference to the current situations surrounding, immigration/Muslims/refugee's in the same posts, makes your position come across that way.

---

airclay said:

Qman, share with us the knowledge you have of these early african warring communities?

Because capturing and selling other tribes into slavery for a couple hundred years does not hold a candle to multiple warring empires for 1500yrs.

Maybe before judging cultures you should remove yourself from the westernized or egocentric lens. Or you know orientalist, exceptionalist or the stack of other terms you seem to refuse exist.

Or even just don't make claims you aren't sure about.

Quote:

The moral of this story is that war by even the most isolated indigenous peoples is not “traditional.” While the decision to go to war is made by local actors, the fights are in response to changes coming from the outside world. The same goes for the recent large-scale “tribal” and “ethnic” violence in Africa, Central Asia, the former Yugoslavia, and elsewhere. In all of these cases conflict has been shaped by outside global processes, from colonial policies that froze formerly fluid ethnic groups and then used artificial borders to divide them, to crashing international commodity markets that made poor nations poorer, to well-meaning non-governmental organizations that provided aid that was misappropriated by men with guns.

---

https://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/china/tribal-warfare-and-ethnic-conflict

---

Tipote said:

but hiliariously, some of you seem to struggle to understand how what happened to ex/post/neo-colonial states over hundreds of years have destroyed their countries into the present and future.

---

Bubbles85 said:

Tipote said:

Excellent, then you sound like the perfect candidate for a leave vote in the EU referendum and a UKIP vote in the next general election ...

---

It'll be a cold day in hell before I vote UKIP

---

What do you have against UKIP? They're a socially Liberal party after all

Bubbles85 said:

They're a socially Liberal party after all

---

Quote:

They think of them selves as Libertarians. Fiscally Conservative, Socially Liberal.

---

all nice things.... except Libertarians are anti-liberal. but everything else seems pretty kosher.

Bubbles85 said:

Tipote said:

but hiliariously, some of you seem to struggle to understand how what happened to ex/post/neo-colonial states over hundreds of years have destroyed their countries into the present and future.

---

But is this not where this whole discussion about "white guilt" originates? That statement is in effect, IMO, holding today's generations to ransom. You might not agree with that, but thats how it feels.

It feels as tho the Liberal stand point on past history's, in a way, try's to force people in to a sense, that they them selves have a reason to feel remorse. When the reality is, that they/we had absolutely nothing to do with any of it.

You're not just giving context, you're subtly implying that we now have a duty to these people, for shit that went down hundreds of years before we even existed.

---

Bubbles85 said:

No, you're wrong. You're talking in terms of economics. Libertarians clearly support individual civil liberties (hence they can be considered socially Liberal) but with as little intervention as possible by the state in the affairs of it citizens. Which is why libertarians can at times, be associated with right-wing politics.

Anarcho-Libertarianism is an extreme form Libertarian. Most Libertarians do not seek a stateless society.

---

akira_akuma said:

Bubbles85 said:

No, you're wrong. You're talking in terms of economics. Libertarians clearly support individual civil liberties (hence they can be considered socially Liberal) but with as little intervention as possible by the state in the affairs of it citizens. Which is why libertarians can at times, be associated with right-wing politics.

Anarcho-Libertarianism is an extreme form Libertarian. Most Libertarians do not seek a stateless society.

---

and i'm not talking about social liberalism, i'm talking about liberalism.

and the UKIP is not left-leaning libertarianism.

---

Quote:

never stated that UKIP are a Liberal party

---

akira_akuma said:

Bubbles85 said:

They're a socially Liberal party after all

---

---

Bigbadwooof said:

Bubbles85 said:

Tipote said:

but hiliariously, some of you seem to struggle to understand how what happened to ex/post/neo-colonial states over hundreds of years have destroyed their countries into the present and future.

---

But is this not where this whole discussion about "white guilt" originates? That statement is in effect, IMO, holding today's generations to ransom. You might not agree with that, but thats how it feels.

It feels as tho the Liberal stand point on past history's, in a way, try's to force people in to a sense, that they them selves have a reason to feel remorse. When the reality is, that they/we had absolutely nothing to do with any of it.

You're not just giving context, you're subtly implying that we now have a duty to these people, for shit that went down hundreds of years before we even existed.

---

You do have a duty to them. That duty is to observe the past, and take note of the fact that African people have been marginalized for centuries. Your duty is to not point to the shortcomings of a marginalized people, and claim that they are somehow innately inferior. Your duty is to give them the same respect you give anyone else, until they, individually (on a person-to-person basis), prove themselves unworthy of that respect, as with any other group.

However, your duty is not to make any sort of payment for the transgressions of your ancestors. We cannot undue the damage that has been done, and we should not attempt to through any form of reparation. At the same time, we should not deny history, and pretend that these people are inferior to other race's.

Surely there is merit to liberal race arguments. The sort of arguments qman makes originate from an agoraphobic, or even hateful place, but are not born from any deep analysis of reality.

---