The failure of Liberalism (Regressive left) to deal with Islam

[Itse]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

By the 17th century, its vast overseas empire didn't stop Spain from being a backwards, second-rate power in decline. While in that same era, countries like Sweden and Denmark became prosperous and strong, despite no overseas colonies.

Actually, Denmark was at the height of its power in the 14th century (Kalmar Union era), and it's been generally downhill for them since 1523, which is when the Swedes broke away from the union. So they most certainly did not "become prosperous and strong" by the 17th century "despite no overseas colonies". (Hello Greenland and Iceland btw. And Faroe Islands. But I think we can agree that not all colonies are equal )

Denmark spent the 17th century getting pounded by their then larger neighbouring Swedish empire, who even at one point put Copenhagen under siege. They did have a brief period of relative prosperity at the end of the 18th century (after they had acquired overseas colonies in both West and East Indies and in modern Ghana) before the Brits (an even larger empire) started the 19th century by burning their fleets and taking over their waterways, which quickly brought Denmark into bankruptcy.

And how exactly did Sweden become strong and prosperous? By raiding and conquering their neighbours. Oh, and they also had overseas colonies on the Gold Coast. (Plus Baltics and Poland and at one point Russia...)

Btw, Finland has pretty much the same culture as Sweden and we inherited really all of their laws, rights, system of governance, system of education etc etc. The same level of technology too. So why was Finland so much poorer than Sweden really up until the turn of the millennium? (We're actually still notably behind in GDP/capita.)

And of course there's Germany, which at the height of the imperial era had virtually no empire to speak of.

The German empire had no empire to speak of?
I'm sure the Polish would love to hear more.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

And the parts that originally did the conquering had themselves been repeatedly conquered by the Mongols and other steppe peoples (hence the wall).

That period ended something like 700 years ago, depending on how exactly you count it. Oh, and the Yuan dynasty (mongols) already ruled from Beijing, not present-day Mongolia. Mid 13th century or something like that.

There are many examples of prosperous states today that had nothing to do with colonization, and many example of colonial powers that profited little from their colonization. As there are many examples of colonized states that went have gone on to be prosperous.

It's not "has been colonized at some point in their history" is just some binary tag. Some countries were colonies 50 years ago and some were colonies 100 years ago. Some were introduced to new crops and developed. Some were robbed of anything of value and abandoned. Some got genocides. Others got railroads.

Likewise, some empires were lead by terrible leaders and some were lead by great leaders. Some empires got later invaded by others and some did not.

The correlation is weak.

It really is not, and it's not even about correlations, because we're not talking about the laws of averages or hypothetical countries. We're talking about actual cases and actual countries.

You have also now completely moved the goal posts to somewhere not even in the same game as your original arguments that Europe was mostly gone from Africa and Middle-East before "colonization got into full swing."

There are far stronger causal relationships between things like property rights, trade practices, educational systems and prosperity than there is between colonialization and prosperity.

So, colonization does not significantly affect things like property rights, trade practices and educational systems?

Well sure, it's not like the being a colony affected who you could trade with and on what terms. And those property rights of yours sure are great when foreigners take your land at gunpoint.

Basically what you're trying to claim is that it doesn't in any significant way affect your society whether you're the ones doing the ruling or the ones being ruled over.

[Itse]

The original argument was not that colonialism doesn't matter. The original claim by CliffFletcher was even more absurd, that Europeans didn't even have much to do with Colonialism in Middle-East and Africa. When literally the word colonialism means the a certain period in time when mostly Europeans did a lot of colonizing.

There's been a whole lot of goalpost moving since, but really anyone who thanked that post should be ashamed of their ignorance.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Itse

The original claim by CliffFletcher was even more absurd, that Europeans didn't even have much to do with Colonialism in Middle-East and Africa.

Actually, not to involve myself in the discussion but just to be actually fair to the person you're arguing with, the point of CliffFletcher's original claim was that European wealth was in fact not largely built on the back of third world resources that were taken for free, but rather that it was the result of the things he listed:

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

That's simply not true. Europe was pulling away from Africa and the Middle East before colonialism got into full swing. This prosperity came from trade, science, commerce, literacy, private property, political systems that devolved power to a larger body of citizens than a tyrant and his court.

In response to this:

The issue I have with that line of thinking is it blames historically oppressed people for their oppression as if the prosperity of the west wasnt largely built on free 3rd world resources, slaves, colonialism, war, etc.

I shall now retreat back into the hedge and continue eating my popcorn.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Itse

The original argument was not that colonialism doesn't matter. The original claim by CliffFletcher was even more absurd, that Europeans didn't even have much to do with Colonialism in Middle-East and Africa. When literally the word colonialism means the a certain period in time when mostly Europeans did a lot of colonizing.

There's been a whole lot of goalpost moving since, but really anyone who thanked that post should be ashamed of their ignorance.

You are accusing other posters of moving goalposts in this argument? Okay.

[Crumpy-Gunt]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

That's simply not true. Europe was pulling away from Africa and the Middle East before colonialism got into full swing. This prosperity came from trade, science, commerce, literacy, private property, political systems that devolved power to a larger body of citizens than a tyrant and his court.

This is what what happens when people become politically active before (or instead of) learning history. People who see the world simply as narrative of Western exploitation are betraying their own ignorance of the world beyond the West, where warfare, competition, conquest and exploitation have been with us since the time of the pyramids.

India has always been both incredibly rich and incredibly poor, and its rulers were usually whichever invaders had most recently poured down from Central Asia. China was one of the most prosperous parts of the world for centuries. Was China richer than Indonesia because of exploitation?

Prosperity derives partly from the quirks of geography, but more importantly it derives from culture. In 1950, Korea was one of the most impoverished places on the planet. It had few resources, a population of oppressed peasants, and it was occupied by a succession of foreign powers, from China to Japan to Russia to the U.S. A brutal war was fought over its landscape, and left the country divided. Today, South Korea is one of the most affluent and advanced countries in the world. That isn't because of colonialism or exploitation. It's rich because it had, or developed, a culture geared towards innovation and industry.

Those who want to look at history and global affairs as a morality play, with villains and victims and saviors, aren't serious people. They subordinate the complex and serious world we live in to their own ideological agenda. It's understandable that 19-year-olds indulge in that kind of activism. They're learning to think independently, and are apt to defy any authority just because if feels good. People who still think that way at 39 never got past the adolescent rebellion stage of intellectual development.

I think your post is actully ridiculous but I will address the points in your 5 paragraphs..

Your whole idea of Europe pulling away from the rest of the world completely on its own without the technology and resources of other nations is ridiculous. For example the invention of paper, writing, gun powder, gold, etc. Not to mention much of European glory is inherited from Greece through Rome. We cant just pretend the Greeks and Romans didnt benefit from not only being able to learn from and use the cultures around them to their advantage but adapting their cultures to be more prosperous as a result. Many of the so called 'western advancements' were in fact eastern achievements shared with the west.

2nd paragraph is an insult to people like Itse and I - I suppose who you deem as ignorant of the world or history (funny enough I am a history major)

"this is what happens when people become politically active before learning history"

Its funny because I would use the same description for those who believe Europe was able to do what it did without the help or exploitation of a single soul. 'It's rich because it had, or developed, a culture geared towards innovation and industry.'

Pretty ridiculous if you ask me. Europe had nothing at one point and were viewed as barbarians by the Romans who couldnt stand most people east of Hadrians wall. In fact the first city in Europe was a colony of Rome. Called Cologne - or at that time Colonia Aggripina. Now you are making a claim that Europe's prosperity comes from this idea that is had a culture geared towards innovation. Much of Europe at one time was just a group of tribes constantly fighting in the forests. Where did they get that culture of innovation and industry from? Did they invent paper, writing, gun powder etc in those same forests? Did they mine the gold they kept their wealth in out of European soil?

Anyone who isnt speaking from some standpoint of European or white pride can understand that most of Europeans wealth and brilliance was taken from others. From mathematics to medicine to innovations in all walks of life.

It is ironic that you had within your post that this is the result of people becoming politically involved before they know history because that is a perfect description of your own views.

So Europe is fully responsible for the success of Europe. Why did they have to leave Europe or even come into contact with Rome/Greece and the rest of the world before they became civilized and gave up their pagan barbarian culture?

I think the fact that this conversation went from the fact that the Middle east is comparable in some ways to Africa as a place with a history of foreign meddling and differing forms of colonialism - to sworkhards brilliant ''the world needs to stay just how it is because we're benefiting in the west' - to people coming out in full support of a poser who basically proclaims that the west isnt responsible for many of the reasons that much of the developing world is a corrupt resource basket. Furthermore none of the prosperity of the west can be put down to their exploitation of the other people and also their interaction with the rest of the world and subsequent scrap-booking of other peoples innovations, beliefs and practices. It just goes to show the level of white pride / ego. Funny now it becomes clear why the title of this thread is written in terms like 'deal with Islam'. Because a big part of our society actually feels like western civilization has reached the heights it has reached due to the intellectual superiority of westerners. The same people who were banned from Rome because they were considered unclean, small minded and violent are now playing the intellectual superiority card with the rest of the world (after pillaging the resources and innovations of the same people they view as inferior)

History says no. Many historians actually point to the Egyptian influence on Greece as the main civilizing factor of Europe. Since Rome came around and basically stole everything from Hellenistic period - including their gods, turning Cronus into Saturn and Zeus into Iuppiter - it is accepted that civilization wasnt developed by the west but inherited by the west from Egypt, through Rome and Greece.

Not to mention the endless contributions and influences from China, India and the Middle East believe it or not. There is a reason many scholars attribute much of the renaissance to Andalusia.

Just the fact that we've progressed through this conversation as we have is rather telling. We went all the way to the realization that we will never 'deal' with Islam if we dont deal with poverty, violence and corruption. The conclusion that we live the way we do because Europe invented everything and created a "culture geared towards innovation and industry" in which nor the innovations nor the industries were 100% European is telling. This is why much of the world lives on less than 2 dollars and we pay for parking or tip our waitresses with more than that - is because we in the west are lucky enough to live in a place designed by brilliant white minds the likes of which the world has never seen.


[nage waza] You've all shown your hands! You are a group of very proud white men who arent interested in understanding or helping anybody because you feel like they deserve to live the way they live and we deserve to live the way we live because the western culture is a culture geared towards innovation and industry. The fact that many of you believe the western worlds wealth prosperity and innovations werent HUGELY helped by the exploitation of literally every continent on the face of the earth is HILARIOUS. Especially since most of you live in Canada..
[/nage waza]

[peter12]

Dude, Hadrian's Wall was built as a defensive fortification against the Picts in Northern Britain.

You were a history major (I thought you had spent years studying political science)?

[Itse]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Actually, not to involve myself in the discussion but just to be actually fair to the person you're arguing with, the original claim was that European wealth was in fact not largely built on the back of third world resources that were taken for free, but rather that it was the result of the things he listed

First of all, that argument is in part backed this part

That's simply not true. Europe was pulling away from Africa and the Middle East before colonialism got into full swing.

This is a factual claim that is just wrong. You can't just make up your own version of history to back your view of the world.

Second, Europe started to become the richest, most powerful and most technologically advanced part of the world during the colonization era. I really suspect the problem here is that people have a completely distorted view of what the rest of the world was in comparison to Europe at the end of the Middle-Ages. And I'm not just talking about the Middle-East here.

But really, this whole line of argumentation is just so far off the charts of sensible historical views that I don't think I'm that interested to start arguing over it.

Cliff has already made it blatantly clear that he is not qualified to discuss economic history, and that I see no point in taking his commentary seriously. Others are of course free to disagree.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Itse

First of all, that argument is in part backed this part



This is a factual claim that is just wrong. You can't just make up your own version of history to back your view of the world.

Second, Europe started to become the richest, most powerful and most technologically advanced part of the world during the colonization era. I really suspect the problem here is that people have a completely distorted view of what the rest of the world was in comparison to Europe at the end of the Middle-Ages. And I'm not just talking about the Middle-East here.

But really, this whole line of argumentation is just so far off the charts of sensible historical views that I don't think I'm that interested to start arguing over it.

Cliff has already made it blatantly clear that he is not qualified to discuss economic history, and that I see no point in taking his commentary seriously. Others are of course free to disagree.

Actually, no. The rise of certain nation-states within Europe came about, in part, because of increasing agricultural yields (England's 10:1 leading the pack), and better trade systems with each other.

How could cultures all of a sudden develop the economic and cultural means to start launching massive expeditions around the world with no hope of yield?

Remember, Columbus didn't know that the Americas were packed full of stuff. He thought he was just opening up another trade route. You don't get to this cultural point without a lot of other stuff going on (see Cliff's list).

[Crumpy-Gunt]

Originally Posted by peter12

Dude, Hadrian's Wall was built as a defensive fortification against the Picts in Northern Britain.

You were a history major (I thought you had spent years studying political science)?

You are probably the dumbest person in this thread and your posts are all one sentence long. Where did I say what Hadrians wall was built for? Just that Romans built a wall between themselves and a group of European peoples. Just that there were a kind of people on the other side of it that Romans were disgusted by. The same kind of people today want to claim the glory of Rome.

If you've ever been to university or you know that people can pivot in their studies or do multiple majors.

Get a life you cretin - or at least start contributing more than that.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Actually, not to involve myself in the discussion but just to be actually fair to the person you're arguing with, the point of CliffFletcher's original claim was that European wealth was in fact not largely built on the back of third world resources that were taken for free, but rather that it was the result of the things he listed:

In response to this:

I shall now retreat back into the hedge and continue eating my popcorn.

Except you can't just say it was a result if trade and property rights when the things being traded and the property bring protected came directly from subjugation of economic colonies, including the slave trade.

Exploitation colonialism is the national economic policy of conquering a country to exploit its natural resources and its native population. The practice of exploitation colonialism contrasts with settler colonialism, the policy of conquering a country to establish a branch of the metropole (Motherland), and for the exploitation of its natural resources and native population. A colonialist power pursues settler colonialism to relieve the pressures of over-population upon the economy and the national territory of the motherland, and to extend its territory and culture by reproducing its society in other parts of the world. A reason for which a country might practice exploitation colonialism is the immediate financial gain produced by the low-cost extraction of raw materials by means of an enslaved native people, usually administered by a colonial government.

The geopolitics of an Imperialist power determine the colonial practice of either settler colonialism or of exploitation colonialism. In the example of the British Empire, white-skinned colonists settled mainly in northern North America and in Australia, where they exterminated the native populations in the course of establishing a facsimile society of the mother country (metropole). Whereas the densely populated countries of the British Raj (1858–1947), in the Indian subcontinent, and the British occupation of Egypt and South Africa, as well as the island of Barbados, were ruled by a small populace of colonial administrators (colonial government) that redirected the local economies to exploitation management to supply the U.K. motherland with food, raw materials, and some finished goods from the colonies.

Maybe cliff would like to clarify what he means by European nations pulling away from Imperialsim before the scramble for Africa even began?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Crumpy-Gunt

You are probably the dumbest person in this thread and your posts are all one sentence long. Where did I say what Hadrians wall was built for? Just that Romans built a wall between themselves and a group of European peoples. Just that there were a kind of people on the other side of it that Romans were disgusted by.

If you've ever been to university or you know that people can pivot in their studies or do multiple majors.

Get a life you cretin - or at least start contributing more than that.

I think your grilled cheese sandwich is ready.

[Crumpy-Gunt]

Originally Posted by peter12

You don't get to this cultural point without a lot of other stuff going on

PS 'this cultural point' was achieved through contact with people, exchange of ideas and yes - exploitation of others. Or else Europeans would have been forging iPhone 6s in the ancient Germanic forests.

[Crumpy-Gunt]

Originally Posted by peter12

I think your grilled cheese sandwich is ready.

I think Vikings is on so why dont you go drool over the sexy euro super geniuses who developed the world. The advanced culture your ancestors created with no help from anyone

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Oh my God I just cannot resist it's too good.

Originally Posted by Crumpy-Gunt

2nd paragraph is an insult to people like Itse and I - I suppose who you deem as ignorant of the world or history (funny enough I am a history major)
[...]
Europe had nothing at one point and were viewed as barbarians by the Romans who couldnt stand most people east of Hadrians wall.

YOU GUYS HE'S DISCOVERED ATLANTIS!

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by peter12

I think your grilled cheese sandwich is ready.

[Crumpy-Gunt]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Oh my God I just cannot resist it's too good.


YOU GUYS HE'S DISCOVERED ATLANTIS!

East of Hadrians wall as in mainland Europe (not the British isles.) Germany, Scandinavia or whatever ancient pagan tribes those lands correlate to

You are trying to troll a troll. Funny how you disapeared for about 10 pages and resurfaced when the rest of your mates are trying to prove Europes brilliance and innocence at the same time. Brilliant how you nitpicked a huge post disproving the idea the west didnt benefit from the rest of the world - by showing a map of hadrians wall and claiming I was referencing the north sea... The romans werent under any real threat from the British Isles its clear I was talking about the people across the sea..in what we know as the European mainland. Why dont you address the non-western influence on western civilization

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Except you can't just say it was a result if trade and property rights when the things being traded and the property bring protected came directly from subjugation of economic colonies, including the slave trade.

Um what?

Without sufficient prosperity, there would be no subjugation of economic colonies including the slave trade as the countries that did so would not be able to afford them. Just because the prosperity that resulted from these among other things was used to subjugate economic colonies and participate in the slave trade, does not mean that trade and property rights didn't cause the prosperity necessary to do these things in the first place.

[JiriHrdina]

Thread locked for review.