Political Crossfire Forums

[Kieran]

Devaka wrote: Quote: I'd like to see you provide some credible links to support your claims that the British Empire killed as many people as the Japanese Empire.

Read what I said:

Quote: Even if people aren't directly murdered, you still fail to realize the profound impact of colonisation and exploitation. Centuries of exploitation, racism, segregation, oppression, starvation and on and on and on. Sad.

Quote: As I have mentioned, far more people in Africa were killed fighting each other than were killed by the British authorities. By imposing the Pax Britannica, it could easily be argued that the Empire saved far more lives than would have been taken by inter-tribal warfare.

Wrong yet again. The British may have not directly slaughtered civilians in the style of genocide, but the fact remains that the peoples were subjugated to oppressive slavery. Sorry sir, but you are infantilizing Africa's people and making it seem like they were killing and massacring each other when in reality the British and European colonial powers invigorated ethnic hatreds and tore apart kingdoms causing some of the problems we now see today.

Would it have been alright if Africans came to Europe and enslaved the British and Europeans to prevent them from getting into wars (such as the 100 years war)? You forget that the British and Europeans killed many of their own during their own wars. Stop acting like Africa was full of "savages" who fought each other and needed to be enslaved to be saved, because that mentality is thoroughly screwed up. You can look over my previous posts if you need more evidence as to why that is so.

Quote: The Empire was aquired out of economic greed and for reasons of gaining prestige over other nations, but it was administered far more justly than most other Empires. Natives were never systematically murdered by the authorities as they were in the Belgian Congo or in East Africa by the Germans. If we weren't there, you can bet they probably would have been.

British colonialism wasn't administered "far more justly." Colonialism was not "fixed" by the "noble" British, it was always an exploitative insitution that subjugated the indigenous populations to subhuman status, no matter who it was administered by.

Quote: I have never pretended it was all good, or that benevolence was the sole motivation for the governing of the Empire, but it's achievements, The destruction of far more evil empires, the abolition of slavery, the spreading of parliamentry democracy and the concept of the rule of law etc far outweigh the bad.

When did I say you pretended it was all good? I was arguing your point that the British Empire outweighed what it did wrong. Which I think is completely and factually wrong. Tell me, how did British colonialism aid in the destruction of far more "evil empires"? Also, you fail to mention with the abolition of slavery my previous point:

Quote: Slavery existed, right, but it didn't exist as the system the British used. In kingdoms such as Ashanti, when wars were fought, sometimes prisoners were captured and became slaves. They eventually were incorporated into the family they were serving and even married the daughters of those families. Eventually, they became regular members of society. The British and other European colonial powers, however, used slavery for pure commercial gain and upset the carefully balanced system, capturing millions of people and transporting them in cramped ships, destroying the population. When brought to the Americas, they were then given subhuman status. The British finally realized this was a morally bankrupt system and tried ending the system, after it had already dealt irreparable damages to countless African societies.

With parliamentary democracies, again, blinded by your anglocentric views you failed to read this:

Quote: Wrong yet again. Indigenous populations were guided by democratic principles. After suffering from repression, many overthrew autocratic leaders and democratic institutions arose. I suggest you look up the kingdom of Ashanti. Or Mali. Or Ufipa. Or the Gikuyu, etc. etc.

When the British came, they installed tyrannical and racist governors. They destroyed these fundamental democratic principals by taking away the rights of indigenous populations. Colonialism was far, far from a benevolent institution and no, the indigenous populations weren't being "liberated" from oppressive rulers, rather subject to a new form of tyranny.


Quote: concept of the rule of law

The British "discovered" the concept of rule of law and "gave" it to indigenous populations? Jesus, you do think that Africans and other indigenous populations were "savages"! Read my previous posts and examples. You've still left countless more of my points unanswered. And you failed to respond in an intelligible manner to the points you did decide to answer.

I'll be making a massive post to prove your idiocy and ignorance on this subject once and for all later. For you to spew such racist and imperialistic rhetoric is ridiculous.

:tu:

[Kalu]

EDIT: Nevermind.

[thundertaker]

I'll do you a deal, I'll get those books out of the library and read them if you read Ferguson's Empire: How Britain Made the modern world. That way, neither of us will be able to say we haven't read broadly on the subject........

[The_Right_Honourable]

Devaka. Ive heard all your arguements before from Americans who quite often also refuse to acknowledge Americas own Empire and the terrible things it has done in the name of Freedom.

The British Empire was not a tool to help people it was an EMPIRE. No other Empire has ever made the same morale stances as the British Empire.

I am a Socialist. But i believe that one of the great injustices of the world is the way people knock our great past.

These africans were inferior, not racially but technologically. Sophistication was everything to the Victorians so why the hell would they treat them as equals?

Compared the all the other major Empires we werent that bad. Russia? Germany? Japan? Rome? Mongol?

No Empire is a totally benevolent force but Britian did make a difference to the world. A positive one. It made a great many mistakes which we live with today but who hasnt made mistakes?

Your blindness to thundertakers well reasoned arguement is baffling.

[Kalu]

Quote: Devaka. Ive heard all your arguements before from Americans who quite often also refuse to acknowledge Americas own Empire and the terrible things it has done in the name of Freedom.

Where the hell did I deny America has done wrong?

Quote: The British Empire was not a tool to help people it was an EMPIRE. No other Empire has ever made the same morale stances as the British Empire.

Read the entire argument I just had with thunder please.

Quote: I am a Socialist. But i believe that one of the great injustices of the world is the way people knock our great past.

I believe one of the greatest injustices is trying to cover up the deplorable parts of your past. Saying "No more apologizing" is fine since apologies won't help now, but losing the colonial arrogance and helping those who were screwed over by the British Empire is a start. Thus the entire point of why I was arguing with thunder about this article.

Quote: These africans were inferior, not racially but technologically. Sophistication was everything to the Victorians so why the hell would they treat them as equals?

Glad you recognize the injustice.

Quote: Compared the all the other major Empires we werent that bad. Russia? Germany? Japan? Rome? Mongol?

Colonialism is colonialism. Doesn't matter who or what uses it as a system. It's still exploitation. You can review the examples I've provided and read some more books if you still fail to agree.

Quote: No Empire is a totally benevolent force but Britian did make a difference to the world. A positive one. It made a great many mistakes which we live with today but who hasnt made mistakes?

Your blindness to thundertakers well reasoned arguement is baffling.
You can not read. :roll: Also let me remind you this article is about Gordon Brown and his statements. If there was an article about America saying America's great and that America's imperialistic policies were/are great, you can bet I'd be arguing that too. Finally, I refer you back to my main point for arguing with thunder:

Quote: No, you should not kill yourself because of your country's deplorable past, but you should realize that no amount of apologizing will make up for what was done and that saying "let's just move on" is not enough. You should realize why there are so many problems in these countries and what contributed to these problems and even created them: colonialism.





Quote: I'll do you a deal, I'll get those books out of the library and read them if you read Ferguson's Empire: How Britain Made the modern world. That way, neither of us will be able to say we haven't read broadly on the subject........

I will not be cutting "any deals." You must admit you were wrong about these points:

Quote: These places were rife with poverty, tribal warfare and despotism long before we arrived. But when you look at India today, it is the world's largest democracy, with the best civil service in the world. It would not have had these were it not for the fact that these were institutions introduced by the British.

Quote: But you have to realise that often, the native rulers of the indiginous peoples were often far worse than the British when they cam along.

Quote: As for Africa today, we were not there long enough to modernize the countries as we were India, and when we left, most of them sunk back to their old ways of tribal warfare, tyranny, genocide and corruption, for which the same African leaders responsible for this have the gall to blame Britain's colonial legacy for.

And alot of other things you said. You must also agree with this point I made:

Quote: No, you should not kill yourself because of your country's deplorable past, but you should realize that no amount of apologizing will make up for what was done and that saying "let's just move on" is not enough. You should realize why there are so many problems in these countries and what contributed to these problems and even created them: colonialism.

Also you must agree that whatever "benevolent" side effects of colonialism may have arisen were far, far outweighed by the irreparable damages created by it through exploitation, subjugation, slavery, oppression, racism, indiscriminate killings, divisionism and so on.

Finally, you must accept that all cultures have their merits, that none can be called "savage", that none can be considered "inferior" to Victorian culture, and that no human should have been subjugated to colonialism.

Only then would I even consider reading Mr. Ferguson's book. Otherwise I dare not to if it is endorsed by a myopic person who fails to admit when they are wrong despite the evidence and logic proving it.

If you do not agree with any of this, we can continue arguing. I'll keep supplying my evidence and you can do the same (assuming you have any and don't run out). You see, I know colonialism was horrible and the benevolent side effects of it were far outweighed by the bad. I also have the evidence to support that. If you'd like to see this, let us continue.

[thundertaker]

Quote: These places were rife with poverty, tribal warfare and despotism long before we arrived. But when you look at India today, it is the world's largest democracy, with the best civil service in the world. It would not have had these were it not for the fact that these were institutions introduced by the British.

Many of them were, the Mugal emperors and the Zulu kings were not democrats and they oppressed their people

But you have to realise that often, the native rulers of the indiginous peoples were often far worse than the British when they cam along.

Note use of the word 'often' as opposed to 'all'.


As for Africa today, we were not there long enough to modernize the countries as we were India, and when we left, most of them sunk back to their old ways of tribal warfare, tyranny, genocide and corruption, for which the same African leaders responsible for this have the gall to blame Britain's colonial legacy for.

India is a vibrant democracy today based on the British model, thanks to generations of imposing British institutions and political values on India. Much of Africa, most notably Zimbabwe and Sudan, has sunk back into corruption and despotism. Mugabe oppresses his own people and blames all of his countries woes on long-gone British colonialism when he is responsible for most of them. I still believe that if we had been there another 50 years, they would have eventually spawned long-lasting democratic traditions as happened in India that could have prevented this.


Quote: I will not be cutting "any deals."

OK, fine. But why should I take your criticisims of me being indoctrinated seriously when you are not prepared to be as open-minded as I am and read materials from more than one perspective? :lol:

[Kalu]

Quote: Many of them were, the Mugal emperors and the Zulu kings were not democrats and they oppressed their people

There were many democratic kingdoms. And also, does that mean the oppressive Zulu kings should have been traded for white ones who would deal numerous more damages? And again:

Quote: Would it have been alright if Africans came to Europe and enslaved the British and Europeans to prevent them from getting into wars (such as the 100 years war)? You forget that the British and Europeans killed many of their own during their own wars. Stop acting like Africa was full of "savages" who fought each other and needed to be enslaved to be saved, because that mentality is thoroughly screwed up. You can look over my previous posts if you need more evidence as to why that is so.

Quote: Note use of the word 'often' as opposed to 'all'.

I still disagree.

Quote: India is a vibrant democracy today based on the British model, thanks to generations of imposing British institutions and political values on India. Much of Africa, most notably Zimbabwe and Sudan, has sunk back into corruption and despotism. Mugabe oppresses his own people and blames all of his countries woes on long-gone British colonialism when he is responsible for most of them. I still believe that if we had been there another 50 years, they would have eventually spawned long-lasting democratic traditions as happened in India that could have prevented this.

India is a vibrant democracy because of the numerous number of diverse ethnic groups living there among other reasons. The British model during colonial times that was enforced was one of repression and ethnic divisionism (against democratic principles).

India is not democratic because of the British and I think if the British or any other European colonial powers had stayed in Africa any longer, the place would have been worse off. Reread my previous posts to understand why the British did just the opposite of spawning democracy under the rule of colonialism. Colonialism in itself is inherently tyrannical.




And so yet again, I repaste what I said:

Quote: I will not be cutting "any deals." You must admit you were wrong about these points:

Quote: These places were rife with poverty, tribal warfare and despotism long before we arrived. But when you look at India today, it is the world's largest democracy, with the best civil service in the world. It would not have had these were it not for the fact that these were institutions introduced by the British.

Quote: But you have to realise that often, the native rulers of the indiginous peoples were often far worse than the British when they cam along.

Quote: As for Africa today, we were not there long enough to modernize the countries as we were India, and when we left, most of them sunk back to their old ways of tribal warfare, tyranny, genocide and corruption, for which the same African leaders responsible for this have the gall to blame Britain's colonial legacy for.

And alot of other things you said. You must also agree with this point I made:

Quote: No, you should not kill yourself because of your country's deplorable past, but you should realize that no amount of apologizing will make up for what was done and that saying "let's just move on" is not enough. You should realize why there are so many problems in these countries and what contributed to these problems and even created them: colonialism.

Also you must agree that whatever "benevolent" side effects of colonialism may have arisen were far, far outweighed by the irreparable damages created by it through exploitation, subjugation, slavery, oppression, racism, indiscriminate killings, divisionism and so on.

Finally, you must accept that all cultures have their merits, that none can be called "savage", that none can be considered "inferior" to Victorian culture, and that no human should have been subjugated to colonialism.

Only then would I even consider reading Mr. Ferguson's book. Otherwise I dare not to if it is endorsed by a myopic person who fails to admit when they are wrong despite the evidence and logic proving it.

If you do not agree with any of this, we can continue arguing. I'll keep supplying my evidence and you can do the same (assuming you have any and don't run out). You see, I know colonialism was horrible and the benevolent side effects of it were far outweighed by the bad. I also have the evidence to support that. If you'd like to see this, let us continue.

Quote: But why should I take your criticisims of me being indoctrinated seriously when you are not prepared to be as open-minded as I am and read materials from more than one perspective?

I'm arguing with you because you claim that British colonialism was a benevolent institution which is far from the truth. I've provided many examples and logic for my arguments. You should take me seriously since you obviously haven't read from more than one perspective due to your romantic views of British "nobility" during the age of colonialism. I am very open-minded, but when I see bulls**t I call it for what it is.

[thundertaker]

Quote: India is a vibrant democracy because of the numerous number of diverse ethnic groups living there among other reasons. The British model during colonial times that was enforced was one of repression and ethnic divisionism (against democratic principles).

So, Britain had nothing to do with India being a democracy? What bollocks. India was not a democracy when we arrived, it was one when it left. It's parliment and even it's procedures are modeled almost directly from the British Westminister model.
Britain taught the Indians British values, and because of this, they started to want the same things the British had that they were denying them, sovereign democratic institutions. How can you say other wise?

Quote: I am very open-minded, but when I see bulls**t I call it what it is

You refuse to read Ferguson's book, I have offered to read the books you have recommended. I am prepared to have my thinking challenged, are you? Or would you prefer not to read anything that might possibly provide a convincing argument against your own beliefs about colonialism? If you aren't prepared to read it, don't you dare try and claim to be open minded......

[Kalu]

Quote: So, Britain had nothing to do with India being a democracy? What bollocks. India was not a democracy when we arrived, it was one when it left. It's parliment and even it's procedures are modeled almost directly from the British Westminister model.
Britain taught the Indians British values, and because of this, they started to want the same things the British had that they were denying them, sovereign democratic institutions. How can you say other wise?

The Indians wanted democracy after having been repressed by the British for so long. How can you deny the system of colonial tyranny? Do you think the viceroys of India gave a damn for democracy? Well, they sure didn't show it while they were exploiting the land, ruining India's textile industry (among many other things) and subjugating it's peoples. The Indians may have taken up the blueprint for a parliamentary democracy, but that's only after they'd fought for it to remove another British system: colonial tyranny.

EDIT: Good, you admitted the Indians wanted the same things the British denied them. Now you realize that even though a blueprint for democracy had been given, it was only after severe colonial repression thus alluding to the fact that colonialism was very wrong and a system for parliamentary democracy was a benevolent side effect because democratic ideals existed within India before the British came. Saying they "taught" them democratic ideals is like saying those populations were born missing a part of their humanity (the desire for freedom) and thus had to be "taught" by the "noble" British. :roll:

Also should the British then have invaded European countries seeing as how they too were led by despots? The simple fact is that whatever blueprint for democracy the British provided (or gave up after the Indians had fought for it) India still suffered alot from the very severe effects of colonial repression, divisionism (the partition of India, etc.) and so on.

Quote: You refuse to read Ferguson's book

Wrong. Reread what I said. I am open-minded, and I have been having my beliefs challenged and supporting them. You, however, called for a "truce" because you realized alot of your assumptions were wrong. I said I'd read Ferguson's books and challenge my beliefs if you realized that I'd proven you wrong on alot of points (reread my previous posts).

[thundertaker]

I don't recall asking for a truce, all I said is that I'd read some of your books if your read Ferguson's book. Nothing I have said as far as I am concerned is wrong. My position thus far remains unchanged. The Empire was commercially exploitative, and had a definite downside, but that it also had a benovelent side and yes, it did introduce things like democracy to India that probably would not have been achieved otherwise, and you have no evidence to suggest this is not the case.
Now I am going to continue this discussion when I have read further, I hope you will do the same.....

[Kalu]

thundertaker wrote: I don't recall asking for a truce, all I said is that I'd read some of your books if your read Ferguson's book. Nothing I have said as far as I am concerned is wrong. My position thus far remains unchanged. The Empire was commercially exploitative, and had a definite downside, but that it also had a benovelent side and yes, it did introduce things like democracy to India that probably would not have been achieved otherwise, and you have no evidence to suggest this is not the case.
Now I am going to continue this discussion when I have read further, I hope you will do the same.....

I will, and I'll be posting sections of John Keay's India: A History tommorow to show you that democratic principles existed before the British. I hope you consider all my points and don't selectively ignore some. Also, I know colonialism had some benevolent side effects but the simple fact is that the damage done was far greater in terms of impact on the countries and indigenous populations then and today.

[Voice of Reason]

Quote: Wrong yet again. The British may have not directly slaughtered civilians in the style of genocide, but the fact remains that the peoples were subjugated to oppressive slavery. Sorry sir, but you are infantilizing Africa's people and making it seem like they were killing and massacring each other when in reality the British and European colonial powers invigorated ethnic hatreds and tore apart kingdoms causing some of the problems we now see today.

Oh please, War, slavery, violence and poverty existed in Africa long before the Europeans came. In South Africa the black Bantu tribes were colonising and wiping out the San without European help. The Tutsis and Hutus had a Conquerer / Conquered relationship before Belgium and Germany landed. In fact the Hutus were the ones that displaced the Twa. Slavery was also rampant in Africa amongst African tribes; the Kings of Dahomey (Now Benin) was a prime example of the African slave trade in full commerce.

We also have to accept the fact that many African leaders have brought their woes upon themselves. How many of them have used western aid payments to buy weapons to fund their wars instead of feeding their people? Take Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, as his people starve and his economy fails, he is building mansions and palaces for himself.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/08/27/wzim27.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/08/27/ixnewstop.html

I appreciate that blaming whitey is popular in todays world but the reality is Africans were enslaving, killing and colonising each other long before whitey came along and in many cases are still committing atrocities even though whitey has left.

Quote: How can you deny the system of colonial tyranny?

I cannot speak for the person you are addressing but I simply do not care about it.

[Kalu]

Voice of Reason wrote: Quote: Wrong yet again. The British may have not directly slaughtered civilians in the style of genocide, but the fact remains that the peoples were subjugated to oppressive slavery. Sorry sir, but you are infantilizing Africa's people and making it seem like they were killing and massacring each other when in reality the British and European colonial powers invigorated ethnic hatreds and tore apart kingdoms causing some of the problems we now see today.

Oh please, War, slavery, violence and poverty existed in Africa long before the Europeans came. In South Africa the black Bantu tribes were colonising and wiping out the San without European help. The Tutsis and Hutus had a Conquerer / Conquered relationship before Belgium and Germany landed. In fact the Hutus were the ones that displaced the Twa. Slavery was also rampant in Africa amongst African tribes; the Kings of Dahomey (Now Benin) was a prime example of the African slave trade in full commerce.

We also have to accept the fact that many African leaders have brought their woes upon themselves. How many of them have used western aid payments to buy weapons to fund their wars instead of feeding their people? Take Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, as his people starve and his economy fails, he is building mansions and palaces for himself.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/08/27/wzim27.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/08/27/ixnewstop.html

I appreciate that blaming whitey is popular in todays world but the reality is Africans were enslaving, killing and colonising each other long before whitey came along and in many cases are still committing atrocities even though whitey has left.

Quote: How can you deny the system of colonial tyranny?

I cannot speak for the person you are addressing but I simply do not care about it.

I know Africans were killing each other before colonialism, the same goes for the Europeans, the Native Americans and pretty much all the other populations of the various parts of the world.

We're discussing colonialism and why it was bad. It is bad there is no denying that. Do you think colonialism was right? Do you think Africans and other indigenous populations were "savages" and needed to be enslaved to be "freed"? If so, reread everything I've posted beforehand instead of coming up with assish assumptions. I'm not "blaming whitey" for all of Africa's problems, I'm discussing with thunder what the colonial legacy left behind. Thank you, goodbye.

[Voice of Reason]

Quote: I'm not even going to waste my time. Reread all my arguments and the images I posted from John Reader's book, Africa: A Biography of the Continent.

I could not care less as to what your privately authored book says...I will rely on Encyclopedias and academic history books thank you.

[Kalu]

Voice of Reason wrote: Quote: I'm not even going to waste my time. Reread all my arguments and the images I posted from John Reader's book, Africa: A Biography of the Continent.

I could not care less as to what your privately authored book says...I will rely on Encyclopedias and academic history books thank you.

Wow. :roll: Yes, let's ignore all the evidence raised in "privately authored books." Ban all the books I say! Let's not read a thing. :roll: Also, you should know Africa: A Biography of the Continent is an academic history book. :lol:

Jumping into an argument without knowing all the details and assuming things: very bad. Makes you look like an ass.

[Voice of Reason]

Quote: We're discussing colonialism and why it was bad. It is bad there is no denying that. Do you think colonialism was right

Yes it was right! I am Australian...Australia is a thriving democratic nation where people enjoy human rights and a high standard of living. Our political and legal systems are based on British law and traditions...

Thanks to colonialism I can brag about being from one of the best nations on the planet.

'TOP TEN COUNTRIES TO LIVE'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4020523.stm

1 Ireland
2 Switzerland
3 Norway
4 Luxembourg
5 Sweden
6 Australia
7 Iceland
8 Italy
9 Denmark
10 Spain

Colonialism worked for me!

Quote: Wow. Yes, let's ignore all the evidence raised in "privately authored books." Ban all the books I say! Let's not read a thing.

When it comes to studying and learning history, I rely on academic texts.

[Kalu]

Voice of Reason wrote: Quote: We're discussing colonialism and why it was bad. It is bad there is no denying that. Do you think colonialism was right

Yes it was right! I am Australian...Australia is a thriving democratic nation where people enjoy human rights and a high standard of living. Our political and legal systems are based on British law and traditions...

Thanks to colonialism I can brag about being from one of the best nations on the planet.

'TOP TEN COUNTRIES TO LIVE'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4020523.stm

1 Ireland
2 Switzerland
3 Norway
4 Luxembourg
5 Sweden
6 Australia
7 Iceland
8 Italy
9 Denmark
10 Spain

Colonialism worked for me!

Didn't seem to work for the aborigines. :roll: Colonialism was inherently tyrannical. Human rights evolved not from colonialism but basic human principles. Colonialism was a system of exploitation.

Quote: When it comes to studying and learning history, I rely on academic texts.

You obviously then have no understanding what an "academic text" is. :roll:

[Voice of Reason]

Quote: Didn't seem to work for the aborigines.

I am not aboriginal, I am of British descent. It was sad that we could not have made some sort of a mutually beneficial treaty with them. I would have preferred that but like it or not..all Australians live in a prosperous thriving nation and I am not about to condemn the foundation of that nations existance. That would be hypocritical. One should not curse a system while reaping the benefits of it.

Quote: You obviously then have no understanding what an "academic text" is.

Resorting to personal shots now are we?

[Kalu]

Voice of Reason wrote: Quote: Didn't seem to work for the aborigines.

I am not aboriginal. It was sad that we could not have made some sort of a mutually beneficial treaty with them. I would have preferred that but like it or not..all Australians live in a prosperous thriving nation and I am not about to condemn the foundation of that nations existance.

You also fail to realize the colonial legacy left behind in Africa, India, etc. No, I'm not blaming "whitey" for all the problems in the world, I'm assessing what problems colonialism created and arguing those points.

And the foundation of Australia's existence was based on the destruction of another people: the aborigines. No mutually beneficial treaty was created despite your wishes, they were wiped out. Colonialism may have "worked for you," but it was a horrid form of exploitation that hurt alot more people.

Quote: Resorting to personal shots now are we?

No; logic. You claim Reader's book is not an academic text so I suggest you look it up and then look up the definition of "academic text" again.

EDIT:

Quote: One should not curse a system while reaping the benefits of it.
Oh, so you're saying we should be quiet about everything and not recognize the damage done in the past since we're reaping the benefits of it? Huh? :-| We shouldn't examine our mistakes and then help those we hurt? Yeah, okay. :roll:

[Voice of Reason]

Quote: You also fail to realize the colonial legacy left behind in Africa, India, etc. No, I'm not blaming "whitey" for all the problems in the world, I'm assessing what problems colonialism created and arguing those points.

I am quite aware of the legacy of colonialism. I have probably forgotten more about African history then you know.

I simply choose not to feel guilty over it.

Quote: And the foundation of Australia's existence was based on the destruction of another people: the aborigines. No mutually beneficial treaty was created despite your wishes, they were wiped out.

Much like your forefathers butchered and displaced the Native American indians. Tell me, what have you done to atone for that sin? Have you apologised to the native people? Have you surrendered your stolen land to them? If not, why haven't you?

Quote: No; logic. You claim Reader's book is not an academic text so I suggest you look it up and then look up the definition of "academic text" again.

This book is an accepted tertiary history textbook or encyclopedia?

Quote: Oh, so you're saying we should be quiet about everything and not recognize the damage done in the past since we're reaping the benefits of it? Huh? We shouldn't examine our mistakes and then help those we hurt? Yeah, okay.

It is the truth...it is hypocritical to condemn the very system that one willingly benefits from. Tell me Mr. Ohio who lives in a nation created on the blood of Native indians. Have you apologised to the native people? Have you surrendered your stolen land to them? If not, why haven't you?