ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » History, Literature, and the Arts
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags colonialism

Reply
Old 11th January 2018, 03:13 AM   #121
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,055
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I read somewhere a few years ago.......
You have to do better than this, Henri. Give us your sources, or look up new ones. At the moment, you are just plucking stuff out of the air.

Do you understand that things have changed somewhat since 1947? If so, why would you reference a 70 year old book, when there are much newer sources?
__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2018, 06:22 AM   #122
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 25,269
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I read somewhere a few years ago that there are now more billionaires in India than in Russia.
Then it should be really easy to find some kind of reference and post it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...f_billionaires

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I don't know if it's due to internet fraud.
It depends on what you mean. If you mean that you read it somewhere because of internet fraud then that makes no sense whatsoever. If you mean that there are more billionaires in India than in Russia and that is because of internet fraud then I think that is unlikely.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There is a bit about India in that book Russian Outlook published in 1947 by Lieutenant- General Sir Giffard Martel:
Another person saying brown or black people are devious and not fit to govern - what a shock
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2018, 08:00 AM   #123
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,060
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
You have to do better than this, Henri. Give us your sources, or look up new ones. At the moment, you are just plucking stuff out of the air.

Do you understand that things have changed somewhat since 1947? If so, why would you reference a 70 year old book, when there are much newer sources?
My source for that about Indian billionaires is from a new book in my local library a few years ago which I briefly browsed through. I can't remember the title. There is a bit on the internet about the matter:

http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/04/luxu...res/index.html

<snip>


Edited by Loss Leader:  Edited for Rule 11

Last edited by Loss Leader; 11th January 2018 at 03:27 PM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2018, 08:08 AM   #124
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,055
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
My source for that about Indian billionaires is from a new book in my local library a few years ago which I briefly browsed through. I can't remember the title. There is a bit on the internet about the matter:

http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/04/luxu...res/index.html........
I'm not interested in the number of billionaires. I am interested in you backing up your claims rather than just posting "I read something somewhere a while back......". Now that you've discovered how easy it is to provide links to your claims, maybe you'll develop the habit of doing it each time you claim something. That would be a big step forward...........as would you attempting to stick to the subject of the thread.
__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2018, 08:52 AM   #125
fagin
Philosopher
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 6,412
<snip>


Edited by Loss Leader:  Edited in its entirety as it responded to an off-topic portion of a post.
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda

Last edited by Loss Leader; 11th January 2018 at 03:29 PM.
fagin is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2018, 08:22 PM   #126
Elagabalus
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,063
Originally Posted by Jerrymander View Post
Okay, so there's a sentiment among certain people that European imperialism was ultimately good become before Europe, the native people were "savages" or "primitive". I wonder if these people would be supportive of a extraterrestrial empire that colonized earth. Certainly aliens with star trek like civilization could look down on earthlings as "savages" and primitives".


The answer is no. I don't know any Earthling who actively wishes to be subjugated by an extraterrestrial empire hellbent on colonizing the Earth* - whether they self identify as pro-colonialist or not.



*unless, of course, they're totally hot!
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2018, 08:14 PM   #127
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,191
If aliens came to visit us, wouldn't we want to establish permanent relations with them? It seems like we should want that very badly because they would know a lot that we don’t know and the only way of learning would be to interact with them.

If that were to happen, wouldn't it necessitate that at least some of them come and live among us? Wouldn’t that inevitably create drastic changes and upheavals in our economy and culture? Is that necessarily a bad thing, or can we accept that there might be great good things along with bad things?

What exactly constitutes “colonization”? If aliens come in huge ships and negotiate with the world powers to establish cities of their own on the various continents of the world, exchanging knowledge and other things for land and materials, but are themselves treated as equals and treat us as equals, is that being “colonized”, and is it necessarily bad?
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2018, 08:22 PM   #128
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 11,151
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
If aliens came to visit us, wouldn't we want to establish permanent relations with them?
Maybe.

Quote:
It seems like we should want that very badly because they would know a lot that we don’t know and the only way of learning would be to interact with them.
You're looking at one side of the equation and ignoring the other. Of course there are potential positives. There are also potential negatives. To establish the best outcome we need to look at both both the positives and negatives and weigh them against each other.

Quote:
If that were to happen, wouldn't it necessitate that at least some of them come and live among us?
No, why would it? Communication doesn't require proximity anymore.

Quote:
Wouldn’t that inevitably create drastic changes and upheavals in our economy and culture?
Yes, I think so.
Quote:
Is that necessarily a bad thing, or can we accept that there might be great good things along with bad things?
It might be a very good thing. It might be a very bad thing. I don't think there is a general answer that applies to all possible aliens. It depends on their attitudes and our relationship to them.

Quote:
What exactly constitutes “colonization”? If aliens come in huge ships and negotiate with the world powers to establish cities of their own on the various continents of the world, exchanging knowledge and other things for land and materials, but are themselves treated as equals and treat us as equals, is that being “colonized”, and is it necessarily bad?
I doubt there'd be much reason for them to want to establish cities on the earth. To what end? And off the earth they don't really need to negotiate with us to start mining asteroids or comets.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2018, 10:42 PM   #129
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,870
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
What exactly constitutes “colonization”? If aliens come in huge ships and negotiate with the world powers to establish cities of their own on the various continents of the world, exchanging knowledge and other things for land and materials, but are themselves treated as equals and treat us as equals, is that being “colonized”, and is it necessarily bad?
You seem to be talking about something akin to migration. It would constitute colonization if, for example, they established relationships with certain existing power bases (e.g. corporations or rogue nations) to subvert others (e.g. democratic societies) and establish oppressive and exploitative structures for their own gain. Like actual colonists did.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2018, 01:25 AM   #130
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 25,269
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
You seem to be talking about something akin to migration. It would constitute colonization if, for example, they established relationships with certain existing power bases (e.g. corporations or rogue nations) to subvert others (e.g. democratic societies) and establish oppressive and exploitative structures for their own gain. Like actual colonists did.
Like the British did in India, shipping off hundreds of thousands to other parts of their (in this case galactic) empire to act as cheap labour - and then just leaving them there.
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2018, 02:53 AM   #131
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,810
Originally Posted by Jerrymander View Post
Okay, so there's a sentiment among certain people that European imperialism was ultimately good become before Europe, the native people were "savages" or "primitive". I wonder if these people would be supportive of a extraterrestrial empire that colonized earth. Certainly aliens with star trek like civilization could look down on earthlings as "savages" and primitives".
Possibly I would be for it. It completely depends on the nature of the colonization though. But yeah, present company excluded of course, we really are a bunch of primitive savages.

Childhood's End was pretty cool up until the last bit. Aliens came and had solutions to most of the world's problems. But that would have been a boring book, so of course it couldn't just end like that.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2018, 06:11 AM   #132
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,191
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Maybe.

You're looking at one side of the equation and ignoring the other. Of course there are potential positives. There are also potential negatives. To establish the best outcome we need to look at both both the positives and negatives and weigh them against each other.
And to be able to weigh the negatives and positives against each other, we would need to fill in the gaps of our knowledge quickly.

More importantly, the choice to interact or not to interact with them may not be ours to make.

Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
No, why would it? Communication doesn't require proximity anymore.
We don't have the technology to communicate with other planets, at least not easily, so we would have to use theirs. If you're thinking they would stay in space and we could beam radio signals at each other from within our solar system, I would want to learn the things about them that come from direct observation

Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Yes, I think so.
It might be a very good thing. It might be a very bad thing. I don't think there is a general answer that applies to all possible aliens. It depends on their attitudes and our relationship to them.
A lot would depend on unknowns. I would think learning the scope of those unknowns would be a top priority.

Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
I doubt there'd be much reason for them to want to establish cities on the earth. To what end? And off the earth they don't really need to negotiate with us to start mining asteroids or comets.
Good point, but the OP started with the assumption that they wanted to colonize us. Possible reasons to want to build cities is just a desire for comfortable living space where it's not necessary to expend huge resources to maintain breathable atmosphere. Perhaps they are enough like us that they also enjoy sandy beaches and sunshine?
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2018, 06:12 AM   #133
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,191
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
You seem to be talking about something akin to migration. It would constitute colonization if, for example, they established relationships with certain existing power bases (e.g. corporations or rogue nations) to subvert others (e.g. democratic societies) and establish oppressive and exploitative structures for their own gain. Like actual colonists did.
In your opinion, what are the elements that distinguish colonization from migration?

If we “colonize” Mars it just means we build a habitat there that is self-sustaining with Martian resources, does that definition change dramatically upon the discovery of intelligent indigenous Martian life?

It seems like they would stand to gain a lot, at least in terms of Earthly wealth, just by being here and being willing to share advanced knowledge, which would necessitate forming relationships with existing power structures. Would they benefit more from establishing relationships with rogue nations than with other nations?
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2018, 06:21 AM   #134
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,870
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
In your opinion, what are the elements that distinguish colonization from migration?

If we “colonize” Mars it just means we build a habitat there that is self-sustaining with Martian resources, does that definition change dramatically upon the discovery of intelligent indigenous Martian life?

It seems like they would stand to gain a lot, at least in terms of Earthly wealth, just by being here and being willing to share advanced knowledge, which would necessitate forming relationships with existing power structures. Would they benefit more from establishing relationships with rogue nations than with other nations?
You're equivocating here. If Westerners had just moved to the Americas or India and set up trade stations we wouldn't be calling it colonization in the sense we think of. What happened historically was that they subverted existing power structures to establish political dominance.

Would they benefit more from establishing relationships with rogue nations? Maybe, if they seek to destabilize and bring down the existing order. The British allied themselves with various minors and warlords in India to bring down more powerful political entities, for example.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2018, 07:32 AM   #135
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,252
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
The British allied themselves with various minors and warlords in India to bring down more powerful political entities, for example.
As did Indian states, prior to the British turning up. Trying to make advantageous alliances is something that states have been doing since distant antiquity.
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2018, 07:36 AM   #136
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,870
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
As did Indian states, prior to the British turning up. Trying to make advantageous alliances is something that states have been doing since distant antiquity.
And yet there are vital structural differences when you do so in a distant overseas empire under the influence of racial ideology, due to for example outflow of wealth, social structures that do not serve local interests and ruthless exploitation of local resources. Destabilization was in their interest, in this case.


I'm honestly apalled by this line of apologetics.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy

Last edited by TubbaBlubba; 2nd February 2018 at 07:38 AM.
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2018, 09:33 AM   #137
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,252
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
And yet there are vital structural differences when you do so in a distant overseas empire under the influence of racial ideology, due to for example outflow of wealth, social structures that do not serve local interests and ruthless exploitation of local resources. Destabilization was in their interest, in this case.


I'm honestly apalled by this line of apologetics.
Meh, I find the "overseas 19th century empires are inherently worse than 'neighboring' empires" to be a lazy racist generalization.
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2018, 12:26 PM   #138
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,191
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
You're equivocating here.
No. I’m not.

What I’m trying to do is to think hypothetically about what might happen if extra-terrestrial aliens actually visited and “colonized” Earth. I’m not trying to assert any particular point of view of the British colonization of India. If you want to look for parallels I think you should remember that’s only one model of what could happen.

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
If Westerners had just moved to the Americas or India and set up trade stations we wouldn't be calling it colonization in the sense we think of.
Which is why I asked you what elements distinguish between “colonization” and “migration”. While I’m not an expert in history, it seems to me the first Europeans to build colonies in North America didn’t need to subvert any existing power structures. When they had disagreements with the natives, they had gunpowder.

Visiting aliens would have similar advantages. If they set up peaceful trade posts, that would be great, but if disagreements arose, they have the ability to drop rocks on us from space, and there wouldn’t be much our technology could do about it.

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
What happened historically was that they subverted existing power structures to establish political dominance.
Okay.

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Would they benefit more from establishing relationships with rogue nations? Maybe, if they seek to destabilize and bring down the existing order. The British allied themselves with various minors and warlords in India to bring down more powerful political entities, for example.
A technologically advanced society may be socially and ethically advanced as well. If they have ideas of better ways to govern and are willing to teach us, couldn’t that be seen destabilizing and subverting existing power structures and establishing political dominance?
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2018, 01:40 PM   #139
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,870
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post

Which is why I asked you what elements distinguish between “colonization” and “migration”. While I’m not an expert in history, it seems to me the first Europeans to build colonies in North America didn’t need to subvert any existing power structures. When they had disagreements with the natives, they had gunpowder.
If you think 15th-century guns were some kind of instant war-winner you are very very wrong. Moreover, firearms was one of the most important trade goods the Europeans had to bargain with. Hell, as late as the 17th century the Portugese were losing wars in Kongo. The most important military advantage the Europeans had is usually said to have been superior tactics. It's arguable. Anyway, for an example, Cortez was most certainly aided by local polities in confronting the Triple Alliance. There are some disagreements on exactly why Mohtecuzoma let his men enter the city with weapons - a common theory is that the Aztecs had no army at the time, and planned to assassinate the Europeans - but were one-upped by Cortez on that note.

In other parts of the world? Have you ever heard the term "Gunpowder Empire"? Yeah, they weren't European. In most famous fleet-decimating encounters, it was a matter of the superior range of European bronze cannons and poor tactics. Swarming of carracks with smaller vessels was more effective.

So I think you have a very inflated view of European "superiority".

Quote:
A technologically advanced society may be socially and ethically advanced as well. If they have ideas of better ways to govern and are willing to teach us, couldn’t that be seen destabilizing and subverting existing power structures and establishing political dominance?
You could say that about the Aztecs and their human sacrifice-centered religion. Was their destruction and the establishment of European power bases a net gain for natives?
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2018, 02:17 PM   #140
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,476
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
Meh, I find the "overseas 19th century empires are inherently worse than 'neighboring' empires" to be a lazy racist generalization.
So for example Irish nationalists who struggled for independence were lazy racists because prior to the English Conquest different Irish clans and kingdoms had frequently fought with one another? You really think that?
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2018, 02:35 PM   #141
crescent
Master Poster
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,639
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Which is why I asked you what elements distinguish between “colonization” and “migration”. While I’m not an expert in history, it seems to me the first Europeans to build colonies in North America didn’t need to subvert any existing power structures. When they had disagreements with the natives, they had gunpowder.
That's not how it happened.

The Spanish worked with tribes that opposed the Aztec in their conquest of Mexico. They worked with neighboring tribes and with divisions within Inca society to overthrow the Inca. Mayan society was already pretty well collapsed, there was no functional government to challenge the Spanish in that area.

Further north, the English and French colonists routinely took sides in wars and conflicts between tribes, pretty much from the day they landed.

The British conquest of India would be a good example of how alien societies could overthrow us.

Start with a trading post. Make friends. Guard the trading post. Guard some of the friends because they help make the trading post work, sell them weapons while you are at it. Guard some of the supply routes and more of the area around the trading post. Make more friends. Help friends in conflicts, because you'll win and that makes the trading post more successful. Let some of the friends hire some of your officers to train their men for fights with people who are not your friends, train them to fight with the advanced weaponry you give them. Let them hire out entire units from your guards if they want, they'll certainly win conflicts that way.

Pretty soon, it gets to the point that the only way to gain power and influence is to be friends with you, and to make use of the military/security services you offer.

Just keep going like that.

By the time your friends don't want to be friends anymore, you already have significant military forces in the area, and control of the better parts of their military. Just look at the events leading up to the 1857 War. The British were not the only ones to follow that example, the the Russians did it throughout central Asia, the French did it in Africa and North America.

One could argue that the U.S. and U.S.S.R did it during the Cold War, and that the U.S. is still doing it.
crescent is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2018, 02:36 PM   #142
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 29,615
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
So for example Irish nationalists who struggled for independence were lazy racists because prior to the English Conquest different Irish clans and kingdoms had frequently fought with one another? You really think that?
Rule of So.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2018, 02:45 PM   #143
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,252
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
So for example Irish nationalists who struggled for independence were lazy racists because prior to the English Conquest different Irish clans and kingdoms had frequently fought with one another? You really think that?
Are you auditioning for Cathy Newman's job? That's quite a "So".
(No, I don't have an opinion on lobsters).

I'm criticizing the idea that, for example, it is necessarily worse for a region of India to be part of the British Empire rather than the Mughal Empire. (Personally, I'd try and compare the application/protection of law, economic growth, individual freedoms etc for the populace in each case and make an informed comparison... I wouldn't just assume that the more distant one was axiomatically worse)
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2018, 03:04 PM   #144
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,191
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
So I think you have a very inflated view of European "superiority".
I'm not making any assertions of European superiority, I'm trying to discuss hypothetical alien colonization of the Earth.

Why so confrontational? Have I offended you?
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2018, 03:14 PM   #145
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,476
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Rule of So.
What are you on about? Address my point or remain silent.

By 1900 almost the whole of the world was ruled by a handful of countries. You're saying that's nothing noteworthy. It's just like locals squabbling and fighting among themselves, which they had been doing. Nothing to see here. Move along please.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2018, 03:45 PM   #146
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 29,615
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
What are you on about? Address my point or remain silent.
Your point was a blatant and irrelevant strawman. I thought I had made that perfectly clear.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2018, 05:42 PM   #147
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,870
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Why so confrontational? Have I offended you?
Not at all, but your view of "colonialism" is coloured by a perception of the Europeans being able to do whatever because "they had gunpowder". That's just not how it worked. Colonialism was a protracted and deliberate undermining of existing societies for exploitative purposes, fuelled in part by racial ideas. In land empires there is usually (but not always!) the desire to incorporate conquered territory and peoples into the existing administration, not just treat them as a resource basket to be exploited.

Colonialism was a set of massively destructive, often outright genocidal exploits. That must be kept in mind in any discussion.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2018, 06:07 PM   #148
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,984
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Not at all, but your view of "colonialism" is coloured by a perception of the Europeans being able to do whatever because "they had gunpowder". That's just not how it worked. Colonialism was a protracted and deliberate undermining of existing societies for exploitative purposes, fuelled in part by racial ideas. In land empires there is usually (but not always!) the desire to incorporate conquered territory and peoples into the existing administration, not just treat them as a resource basket to be exploited.

Colonialism was a set of massively destructive, often outright genocidal exploits. That must be kept in mind in any discussion.
I don't think any group of Homo Sapiens colonising the world back in the day set out to genocide as an aim. It happened because of course, they encountered great hostility when stepping onto a strange land, already inhabited. This was also true of Europe (cf story today about 300 Viking 'Great Northern Heathens' who met a sticky end by the hands of Anglo-Saxons in Repton, England circa 845 AD). And then there were illnesses introduced, that also wiped out whole populations.

I think it is more helpful to look at world history from an Economics POV. The early European/British settlers on the US East Coast (Virginia) were there as venturers they called themselves 'companies', not 'colonialists'.

There were a lot of 'younger sons' who with no hope of land in England, got land in America instead.

The Vikings came to The UK for economic reasons also.

Slavery made entrepreneurs rich.

When the Industrial Revolution came along, we had a new economic system and slavery - although abolished under humanitarian grounds - died a natural death as it now became more economically viable to get your workforce to buy their own food and housing in exchange for a wage.

The next stage will be AI and already large numbers of the workforce are being laid off to give way to the robots.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2018, 06:30 PM   #149
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,870
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I don't think any group of Homo Sapiens colonising the world back in the day set out to genocide as an aim. It happened because of course, they encountered great hostility when stepping onto a strange land, already inhabited.
Uh... it happened, starting with Columbus (a true epitome of the petty tyrant) himself, because they preferred to enslave and rob natives to enrich themselves. Not because they "encountered hostility".
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2018, 06:52 PM   #150
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,476
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Your point was a blatant and irrelevant strawman. I thought I had made that perfectly clear.
You have made nothing clear, and you know that perfectly well. Be specific.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2018, 07:22 PM   #151
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,191
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
Start with a trading post. Make friends. Guard the trading post. Guard some of the friends because they help make the trading post work, sell them weapons while you are at it. Guard some of the supply routes and more of the area around the trading post. Make more friends. Help friends in conflicts, because you'll win and that makes the trading post more successful. Let some of the friends hire some of your officers to train their men for fights with people who are not your friends, train them to fight with the advanced weaponry you give them. Let them hire out entire units from your guards if they want, they'll certainly win conflicts that way.
Okay, so my question for you is if you believe those kinds of power-plays were planned from the beginning, or if they happened spontaneously in response to circumstances?

If we were to extrapolate to hypothetical alien visitors, if they were planning from the beginning to divide and conquer, we would expect them to seek out relationships with lesser world powers that they would work with to undermine greater world powers. Do you agree?
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2018, 07:35 PM   #152
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,496
Originally Posted by Jerrymander View Post
Okay, so there's a sentiment among certain people that European imperialism was ultimately good become before Europe, the native people were "savages" or "primitive". I wonder if these people would be supportive of a extraterrestrial empire that colonized earth. Certainly aliens with star trek like civilization could look down on earthlings as "savages" and primitives".
Porno for Pyros got it right:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2018, 07:56 PM   #153
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,191
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Not at all...
I hope that's true. If so, can you dial back the snark by several settings?

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
That's just not how it worked. Colonialism was a protracted and deliberate undermining of existing societies for exploitative purposes, fuelled in part by racial ideas.
How is it that societies allow themselves to be undermined? Is it possible that the real advantage is a superior understanding of politics? Are there lessons that could be learned that could help our world if we were to come into contact with an alien civilization?

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Colonialism was a set of massively destructive, often outright genocidal exploits. That must be kept in mind in any discussion.
You don't seem to understand, though I've said it more than once now, is that I'm not trying to talk about historical colonialism but I'm trying to explore hypothetical "colonization" of the Earth by aliens. Your understanding of historical colonialism could certainly be informative in that discussion, but you seem only interested in telling me how wrong I am about historical colonialism (which again, I’m not trying to discuss) than you are about discussing hypothetical colonialism by aliens.

So…to nudge you in the direction I want to explore…your description of historical colonialism is rather bleak. Should we extrapolate from our own history and assume that any alien visitor that wants to come live here has hostile intent and plans to exploit us in massively destructive, even possibly genocidal ways?
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2018, 08:06 PM   #154
Elagabalus
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,063
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Okay, so my question for you is if you believe those kinds of power-plays were planned from the beginning, or if they happened spontaneously in response to circumstances?...
With respect to Cortés - totally spontaneous. He was in no way authorized by the Spanish Court. He went his own way.



Which makes an interesting angle. What if the aliens who arrive here go against their prime directive and try to take over the Earth? Who will stop them?
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2018, 08:19 PM   #155
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,870
Quote:
How is it that societies allow themselves to be undermined? Is it possible that the real advantage is a superior understanding of politics? Are there lessons that could be learned that could help our world if we were to come into contact with an alien civilization?
Politics is incredibly contextual; I don't think there is really such a thing as "superior understanding of politics". The very act of a distant foreign power interfering in your domestic issues can be profoundly destabilizing. That's about as much as can be said in general.


Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
I hope that's true. If so, can you dial back the snark by several settings?



You don't seem to understand, though I've said it more than once now, is that I'm not trying to talk about historical colonialism but I'm trying to explore hypothetical "colonization" of the Earth by aliens. Your understanding of historical colonialism could certainly be informative in that discussion, but you seem only interested in telling me how wrong I am about historical colonialism (which again, I’m not trying to discuss) than you are about discussing hypothetical colonialism by aliens.

So…to nudge you in the direction I want to explore…your description of historical colonialism is rather bleak. Should we extrapolate from our own history and assume that any alien visitor that wants to come live here has hostile intent and plans to exploit us in massively destructive, even possibly genocidal ways?
Perhaps then it will help if I explain where I'm coming from. The thread is directed toward "pro-colonialists". This is "colonialist" as in actual historical colonialism, not hypothetical alien colonialism. (I'm not trying to be patronizing here, just making things clear). Suppose the thread had been directed towards those who were "pro-slavery" or "pro-Holocaust". I would say, "Slavery was absolutely horrible with no redeeming features except the enormous profits slave-owners could reap in certain conditions. If alien overlords enslave us, we're screwed."

What your line of hypothetical inquiry is the equivalent of in this analogy is asking, "But what if the alien overlords give us a 40 hours work week, a fair wage, health insurance, and 9 weeks of vacation?" Then I would be saying, that's not slavery, and if you think any slavery in history was like that, you are profoundly misinformed. "But we are talking about hypothetical alien overlord slavery. What if we remove the vacation, but keep the other boons, would that be slavery? Where's the line?" does not really resolve that issue, because the question is ultimately about whether those who engage in apologetics for historical horrors would themselves mind being subject to those horrors, not if there's a way to modify those conditions that make them nice enough.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2018, 08:20 PM   #156
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,870
Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
With respect to Cortés - totally spontaneous. He was in no way authorized by the Spanish Court. He went his own way.
Same thing with Columbus. He did the exact opposite of what he was told to do, in fact.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2018, 08:41 PM   #157
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,191
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
What your line of hypothetical inquiry is the equivalent of in this analogy is asking, "But what if the alien overlords give us a 40 hours work week...
No, it's not the equivalent. You're interpreting it as the equivalent, and you insist on doing so no matter how many times I tell you those are not my intentions.

It should be possible to look at history and to extrapolate lessons for the future without anyone engaging in apologetics, but you’re so obsessed with the possibility that the conversation might result in apologetics that you can’t stop refuting arguments that haven’t been made long enough to participate in the actual discussion.

So you and I can’t communicate with each other because you can’t look past what you think I might say to listen to what I am saying.

Which is too bad. You seem like a smart guy who might have been interesting to talk to.
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » History, Literature, and the Arts

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:27 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.