DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
True Left
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Colonial Era
*****************************************************
#Post#: 4834--------------------------------------------------
Colonialism as viewed by Westerners
By: 90sRetroFan Date: March 15, 2021, 1:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OLD CONTENT
Other than the incorrect (in typically Western anthropocentric
fashion) use of the term "nature" (when in reality colonial era
Western behaviour was utterly natural in the sense of being a
mere product of natural selection) to refer to the environment,
a remarkably vivid self-appraisal by our enemies:
www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/01/1619-project-omits-significant-
detail-new-world-jason-d-hill/
[quote]I’d like to offer something different: a
philosophical-anthropological account of why I believe chattel
slavery was the inevitable outcome of a clash between the
presence of a manifest destiny of European man, and the absence
of one in African and, generally speaking—Indigenous Man.
When European Man and African Man first encountered each other
it must have been a shock to the sensibilities of both. Having
established a particular relationship to the earth that differed
greatly from that of African man, European man saw himself as
more than custodian of the earth—he was its earthly owner who
exercised Divine dominion over it. He had done this by creating
an abstract personality that had devised a method of exploiting
and conquering nature to adapt it to suit his needs. He had, in
effect, divorced himself from his animality, transcended it, and
placed nature in a subordinate position which he dominated and
controlled with weapons, tools and reason. Objects he
encountered, including soil, trees, animals, minerals and
figures resembling human-beings outside the historical process
who presented themselves as part of nature—were treated as
nature; that is, they were simply appropriated, controlled,
taken out of the state of nature and commodified into socially
useful artifacts for human consumption.
When European Man encountered African Man or Indigenous Man, he
did not discover one that was his military or technological
equal. What he found was one that presented himself as
irrevocably tied to his animal nature. Indigenous Man presented
himself as a natural creature having not yet transformed himself
out of biological time into historical time, from a conception
of himself as cyclical biological creature into an epoch-making
world historical man. Indigenous Man did not have these
attributes and he was, literally, there for the taking -- like
the water buffalo and minerals and other resources around him.
Had he transformed himself out of biological time into
historical time, he would have devised the proper self-defense
against conquest. European domination was made possible by the
arrested epistemological development and faulty metaphysics of
Indigenous Man that allowed for his rapacious conquest. He was
seen as existing in a fallowed state of nature.
Man becomes historical by creating new worlds; new worlds that
are symbolic and cultural in form which have no formal spiritual
animal equivalent. Man as an evolved being severs his spiritual
ties with his animal past and in the process engages in massive
repression. Once man co-extends his animality into space and
promotes and lives in biological time, his self-domestication
and, therefore, self-maturation, is retarded and the reigning in
of his animal self is a process that is fetishized. The animal
within one needed no special encouragement. Rather, it is the
birth of a self divorced from nature that will enter the
historical process. A self that does not make this achievement
will lose the battle to historical man.
The problem with Indigenous Man was that he could not extend his
imagination into a world that stretched far beyond his immediate
sight. Unable to construct powerful naval configurations that
could dominate the high seas and reach into territories
beyond,[/quote]
This is factually untrue, of course:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/new-world-raft-design-and-colonialist-response/
But anyway:
[quote]Indigenous Man’s physical, existential groping consisted
in nearby raids and attacks close to the womb-like hearth where
protective retreat into the zones of the primal tribe was always
possible. He never learned to turn away from the ever-cyclical
and adaptive behavior of animal species and create colossal
conquests of his own. Formal detachment and projection into an
infinite future were absent from the range of his possibilities.
Mimicry and imitation -- whether of the ancestral world or the
animal word -- is the ruling principle of Indigenous Man.
Radical innovation would upset an unknowable order ruled by
implacable and ineffable deities whose irreversible punishments
would bring catastrophic designs on a people. Indigenous Man’s
entire use of whatever semblance of reason he utilized was to
divine the minds of the gods in order to placate them and to
preempt them.
European Man, by contrast, used his reason to justify and align
his will with God’s will. If he willed to conquer the majority
of so-called uncivilized lands, then that was God’s will all
along. European Man has never truly feared God in the way
Indigenous Man has feared his gods. European man was not a
renter, a mere custodian and grateful equal opportunity dweller
on the face of the earth: this earth belonged to him and he was
God’s earthly representative on it -- period. European Man saw
himself as God made visible on earth.[/quote]
I have also said many times that Westerners are created in the
image of Yahweh.
[quote]European Man felt his loneliness because of a detachment
from his animality and his unsentimental domestication of
nature. He placed himself above nature, and did not worship,
extol or venerate the creatures he willingly slaughtered as do
many New World indigenous peoples. He did not pray to their
spirits for guidance, or take on their likeness for deeper
insight into an alternate reality. He therefore alienated
himself from his primeval roots. To recover the roots he had
betrayed and can never recover, he set out on a path of
territorial conquests which were symbolic homes from the hearths
that he had abandoned, the roots he had severed, the primal
scene he had fled. The conquests were not just a substitute for
a discarded home within -- they were a sign of physical and
spiritual potency and omnipotence writ large: the world was his
home and belonged to him. Was this not the audacious belief of
tiny England when it dared and did conquer and occupy at one
time one-third of the earth?
European Man has always labored under the conception of himself
as a post-human figure. Modern civilization was made by mandates
handed down by God, or by the rational construct of man’s mind.
European Man, even when mired in tribal configurations, was
always in flight from his roots to a large extent and,
therefore, has always sought to forget from whence he came
through explorative conquests. Explorative European Man, unlike
Indigenous Man, declared himself eternally independent from and,
in some degree, in contempt of primordial nature. For European
Man it is not only that nature cannot be sentimentalized. It
must be commanded, subdued and conquered.
To begin a historical process, one must often leave origins
behind and possess the absolute hubris[/quote]
Hence the name:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/homo-hubris/
[quote]to act as one’s own causa sui and begin a journey with
one’s people out of which one creates a comprehensive mythology.
One and one’s cultural milieu become the standpoint and the
backdrop against which knowledge begins, and against which
justification for moral action occurs.
Indigenous Man was not written out of history by European Man.
His own cosmogonies canceled him out of the realm of high
artifice. The subordination of nature and radical adaption of
nature to man’s needs is the juncture where history begins.
Indigenous Man’s cosmogonies never emancipated him from the
reality of flux and chaos that he needed in order to be
catapulted into the epochal realm of mastery, domination and
conquest. It is not accidental that African Man’s dugout canoes
and larger ships were never equipped to cross the high seas into
Europe and conquer the British Isles. The cognitive feats of
abstractions and mathematical computations required were absent.
Perhaps they were missing because lacking in his thinking was a
conception of a God who existed outside his creation that gave
him cosmic significance and, more importantly, “cosmic
specialness.”[/quote]
I feel the need to remind readers that this article is not
satire.
[quote]Although Indigenous Man had local rites of passage that
turned on heroic tropes within his small local tribes and that
were validated via small-scale conquests of other tribal units
within nearby compounds or at best, across the nearby waters,
these conquests and local discoveries never gave him the cosmic
grandeur of a universal aspirational identity and consciousness
attained by European Man.
Indigenous Man’s cosmogonies canceled him out of the historical
process because they never equipped him to aspire to become a
universal man; the measure of all things. Primordial cosmogony
was always in flux, dependent on the weather, the unruly demons,
or the ineffable gods who ruled the cosmos, or the tribal chiefs
who had access to them and whose whims and moods determined the
moods and nature of the gods themselves.
European colonial expansion can be seen in several lights. One
could say European man transformed each colonial outpost into an
aspirational domain where, say, any Englishman, could realize
himself and become who he thought he was meant to be in the
world. These colonies were transformational units that, to the
European cosmogony and moral imagination, were parts of a whole
in a mechanistic rational universe. Disenfranchised individuals
were not so much regarded as social ballasts as they were
inanimate parts of nature to be appropriated and transformed out
of nature into commodifiable material units.[/quote]
Again, this is not satire. This is the enemy that we must
defeat.
---
"In defense of benevolent colonialism"
www.darkmoon.me/2016/in-defense-of-benevolent-colonialism/
[quote]It has been argued, for example, with much plausibility,
that India became a better country when the the British took
over and abolished the cruel custom of suttee, the burning to
death of widows after the death of their husbands. Similarly,
the abolition of cannibalism in Africa is hardly something for
which the Brits can be blamed. White Warrior’s comment falls
into this category of critique. However politically incorrect,
it constitutes an intellectually defensible point of view. Hence
our reason for publishing it — as a matter for polite and
intelligent discussion. (LD)[/quote]
---
"with much plausibility"
Only to Westerners.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_(practice)#History
[quote]earlier Muslim travellers such as Sulaiman al-Tajir
reported that sati was optionally practiced, which a widow could
choose to undertake.[46]
...
According to Anand A. Yang, one model proposes taking into
account the association of sati with the warrior elite in
particular, sati only became really widespread during the Muslim
invasions of India, and the practice of sati now acquired an
additional meaning as a means to preserve the honour of women
whose men had been slain.[50] Jogan Shankar meanwhile states
that sati gained more value during the period of Muslim
conquests, especially with the variant of mass sati called
jauhar, practiced especially among the Rajputs.[52]
However, this theory does not address the evidence of occasional
incidences of sati in pre-Islamic times. The 510 CE inscription
at Eran mentioning the wife of Goparaja, a vassal of Bhanugupta,
burning herself on her husband's pyre is considered to be a Sati
stone.[53] Vidya Dehejia states that sati became regular only
after 500 CE.[54] He states that the practice originated among
the Kshatriyas and remained mostly limited to the warrior class
among Hindus.[55] Yang adds that the practice was also emulated
by those seeking to achieve high status of the royalty and the
warriors.[50]
...
According to Annemarie Schimmel, the Mughal Emperor Akbar was
averse to the practice of Sati; however, he expressed his
admiration for "widows who wished to be cremated with their
deceased husbands".[63] He was averse to abuse, and in 1582,
Akbar issued an order to prevent any use of compulsion in
sati.[63][64]
...
According to Sharma, the evidence nevertheless suggests that
sati was universally admired, and both "Hindus and Muslims went
in large numbers to witness a sati".[69][/quote]
I myself also find voluntary sati to be extremely romantic. I
would certainly not ban it if I were in charge. The only thing I
would do is eliminate the gender asymmetry: widowers should
practice it also. Indeed there is no reason to limit it to a
practice between spouses only:
[quote]In Cambodia, both the lords and the wives of a dead king
voluntarily burnt themselves in the 15th and 16th
centuries.[/quote]
#Post#: 4835--------------------------------------------------
Re: Colonialism as viewed by Westerners
By: 90sRetroFan Date: March 15, 2021, 1:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Latest (ignore TYT's False Left nonsense about democracy, which
itself was only introduced around the world as a consequence of
colonialism, so why are the TYT idiots praising democracy in a
segment condemning colonialism FFS?):
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsigUjXpea4
#Post#: 5366--------------------------------------------------
Re: Colonialism as viewed by Westerners
By: 90sRetroFan Date: April 6, 2021, 4:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Our enemies on Agatha Christie, whom I agree academically showed
through her novels with great accuracy how colonial-era "whites"
saw themselves compared to "non-whites" (of course, unlike our
enemies, I have never been a fan of Christie novels):
HTML https://counter-currents.com/2021/04/murder-maps/
[quote]Why have her books endured so well? An obvious answer is
the fondness we all seem to share for celebrity, murder, and
mystery (an author rarely goes wrong when he decides to open his
first chapter with a gruesome crime perpetrated against a young
blonde). Another involves escapism. For all the aristocratic bad
behavior depicted in her fiction, Christie’s stories have evoked
a charmed era when Europeans dressed well, drank scotch and gin
during afternoon luncheons, took long holidays in the
Mediterranean — and above all took for granted white (and
particularly British) dominion. Rule Britannia! It is indeed
hard for whites (myself included) not to be seduced a little by
the romance of St. George’s Empire, once breathtaking in its
ambitious scope.
...
She wrote during both the twilight of the aristocracy and the
British Empire, a sprawling hegemon that, at its apogee, flew
its crossed colors over one-fifth of the globe’s landed
territory. Yes, she wrote detective novels, but they were also
romances dedicated to nonchalant European supremacy, to a
confidence in Western values and institutions. Unconscious and
unselfconscious mastery.
...
When she was a child in the 1890s, Britain was the undoubted
center of the world: first in naval might, finance, and overseas
possession. Following the American Revolution (1775-1783), the
British Empire had appeared on the verge of decline. Instead of
wallowing or retreating back into their small island fortress in
order to “reassess,” or to “think things over,” Britishers
devoted more energy to the Orient, particularly to that most
lucrative and prized diamond adorning their imperial diadem —
Hindoostan (India). But in general, the British were more
concerned with maintaining their empire rather than expanding it
during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. This
changed over the course of Queen Victoria’s long reign and
culminated in “the Scramble for Africa” and various
(mis)adventures in East Asia (The Opium Wars and “The Open Door”
policy among them), all of which caused the Empire to suddenly
swell to new and fantastic proportions. But by the interwar era
(ca. 1920-1940), the British had once more returned to
maintaining an empire that had bloated beyond prudence.
...
Of the wilds of Mesopotamia, she remarked, “The utter peace is
wonderful. A great wave of happiness surges over me, and I
realize how much I love this country, and how complete and
satisfying this life is . . .” It was a place where Christie
could mock “Arabs, Kurds, Armenians, Turks and Yezidi
devil-worshippers who worked on the excavations as freely as she
could of Oxford scholars, of her husband and herself.” [5]
Simultaneously, and next to all this antiquity, were the modern
innovations that condensed twentieth-century time and distance —
and allowed for mass European tourism. Motor cars, trains,
steamers, and aeroplanes all played indispensable roles in
Christie’s Oriental murder mysteries. “Detection” and
archaeology went hand-in-hand, after all, for each sifted
through clues, and both investigated the dead.
...
NB: “Colonial” in this essay refers to whites of European
ancestry born or having lived outside the West. In the greater
Anglo-Saxon world, “colonial” was almost always a white person
(joined by expressions such as “Anglo-Indian,” “white African,”
“Boer,” etc.); when referring to nonwhites in the Empire, the
British used terms like “Aborigine,” “colored,” “Hindoo,”
“black,” “Sambo,” “tribesman,” “Mohammedan,” or “native.” Almost
never were the locals or native porters seriously suspected of
having committed the arch-crimes in Christie’s fiction. The
schemes were too well-planned and ingeniously crafted for
audiences to believe their simpler minds were capable of them.
And what an anticlimax it would have made for Monsieur Poirot to
have fingered a lowly colored footman for the murder of Lady
Linette Ridgeway-Doyle! With a few exceptions, nonwhites
filtered in and out of Christie’s stories to “set the mood,” as
it were, to carry the luggage, and to part pretty English ladies
from their coin in exchange for palm readings and colorful
baubles from the bazaar. These were books whose Edwardian
sensibilities appealed to interwar readers who found themselves
pining for a past already lost to them.
...
In the novel The Sittaford Mystery, the character (and victim)
Captain Trevelyan was a retired naval officer who apparently
hated women due to a romantic “jilting” he had once suffered as
a young man overseas. He’d come back to England and rented the
large Sittaford House to the Willetts, a mother and daughter
pair fresh from South Africa themselves (“overfriendly, you
know, like colonials are”). [13] During a seance parlor game,
the Willetts and several of their houseguests received a
troubling message from the spirit board: “TREVELYAN DEAD.”
Amidst a witching-hour blizzard, an expedition was then mounted
to assess the welfare of the Captain — only for the sleuths to
find his body slumped, lifeless, and surrounded by his most
treasured possessions: “two pairs of skis, a pair of sculls
[oars] mounted, ten or twelve hippopotamus tusks, rods and lines
and various fishing tackle including a book of flies, a bag of
golf clubs, a tennis racket, an elephant’s foot stuffed and
mounted and a tiger skin.” [14] The stuff of a former colonial
adventurer.
...
Major Despard, one of the prime suspects in Cards on the Table,
might have resembled Trevelyan during the latter’s younger
years. He was a tall, dashing aristocrat who’d made a living
writing books about his explorations of the dark corners of the
world — places like South America, East Africa, Sri Lanka, etc.
He, too, scorned what in his view was an “effeminate” existence
in favor of sport and safari. Oh, he admitted to liking England
“for very short periods. To come back from the wilds to lighted
rooms and women in lovely clothes, to dancing and good food and
laughter — yes, [he] enjoy[ed] that — for a time. And then the
insincerity of it all sicken[ed] [him], and [he] want[ed] to be
off again.” [16] While Sittaford depicted white colonials as
having suffered enervation by way of the tropical climate,
Despard held the opposite opinion: those of his countrymen who
stayed at home were the degenerates, those who preferred the
company of women — afraid of manly risk and loath to test their
mettle against the elements.
...
Luxmore’s wife attempted to tackle the major, forcing the weapon
up and the shot to tear through the Doctor’s back, killing him
instantly (“foolish woman!”). Aware that such a story would have
invited scurrilous speculation, Despard and Mrs. Luxmore agreed
to keep the incident quiet and to tell all who asked that her
husband had died of his illness. In a supremely white and
self-assured way, Despard explained that though “the [native]
bearers” who accompanied the trio “knew the truth . . . they
were all devoted to [him] and [he] knew that what [he] said
they’d swear to if need be.[17] [They] buried poor old Luxmore
and got back to civilization.” [17] Despite precautions, the
shooting in the wilderness would return to torment Despard “back
in civilized” England.
...
Christie’s 1939 novel Ten Little Indians (known, too, as Ten
Little Niggers or And Then There Were None), also delved into
the psychology of colonialism, particularly in the character of
Philip Lombard, a “soldier of fortune.” Having received a job
offer through a Jewish middleman and with the promise of a
one-hundred guinea bounty, Lombard accepted the mysterious
request with practiced insouciance
...
When accused via gramophone of killing “twenty-one men, members
of an East African tribe” in February of 1932, Lombard was the
sole man undisturbed at having his crimes aired before the
company. In fact, he seemed proud. The “Story’s quite true!” he
said, grinning. “I left ‘em! Matter of self-preservation. We
were lost in the bush. I and a couple of other fellows took what
food there was and cleared out.” General Macarthur, another
servant of the Empire, and one more committed to duty and of
preserving the veneer of imperial beneficence, asked sternly:
“You abandoned your men — left them to starve?” Lombard
shrugged: “’Not quite the act of a pukka sahib, I’m afraid. But
self-preservation’s a man’s first duty. And natives don’t mind
dying, you know. They don’t feel about it as Europeans do.’ Vera
[the young governess] lifted her face from her hands. She said,
staring at him: ‘You left them — to die?’” Lombard answered in
the affirmative once more as “his amused eyes looked into her
horrified” face. [20]
...
By the 1930s, middle and upper-class Europeans could easily book
a passage to the Orient, or to North Africa. The technological
revolution in transportation afforded them steam liners,
zeppelins, planes, railways, and automobiles with which to
journey far; and each of these new modes of travel had become
icons of modernity, of luxury and speed. But they could also be
modes of violence and murder. Cars, trains, and airplanes could
be terrifyingly efficient death machines that could entrap and
then kill many men at a time. [22] How could flesh and blood,
bone and marrow confront 6,000 tons of steel and fire blasting
along at forty or fifty kilometers per hour? World War I gave
perhaps the most eloquent answer to this question. Agatha
Christie’s fiction, too exploited the dual face of modern
technology to great effect: how rich and beautiful Europeans
enjoyed their outremer trips aboard the most fashionable rail
and river liners — but also how these sleek new vessels were the
perfect setting for murder. And in a foreign land with confusing
languages, laws, and smells, with an unceasing heat that beat
down and deranged the senses, any number of evils under a
stronger, heathen sun were likely.
...
Hastings found that “the charm of Egypt laid hold of [him],”
while Poirot complained incessantly of the sand, heat, and
horseflies. Undaunted, Hastings pointed to the magnificent
ruins: “Look at the Sphinx . . . Even I can feel the mystery and
the charm it exhales.” But Poirot “looked at it discontentedly.
‘It has not the air happy,’ he declared. ‘How could it,
half-buried in sand in that untidy fashion. Ah, this cursed
sand! . . . It is true that they [the Sphinx], at least, are of
a shape solid and geometrical, but their surface is of an
unevenness most unpleasing. And the palm-trees, I like them not.
Not even do they plant them in rows!’” [25] Here then were the
dual expressions of the imperial and insular white worldviews:
one reveled in the exotic vastness of empire, while the other
was only content in his native European habitat, or in those
colonial environs comfortably Europeanized to suit his taste.
Once at the tomb, Poirot questioned the surviving Dr. Ames,
“What [did] the native workmen think” of all the trouble? Did
Ames believe in the curse? I suppose, said Dr. Ames, “that,
where white folk lose their heads, natives aren’t going to be
far behind. I’ll admit that they’re getting what you might call
scared.” On cue, Lord Willard’s native servant Hassan appeared,
begging Poirot to take his master’s son away from “the evil
spirits.” [26] In the end, of course, the killer was a
flesh-and-blood man. Pairing the Gothic with the
realist-Modernist was a common Christie device. Her characters
experienced what at first seemed like supernatural events:
seances, ghost sightings, and ancient curses — but by the end
revealing them all as having a logical explanation. The murderer
deliberately manipulated the Ouija Board; a wicked chemist
devised a concoction that would release ghastly green vapors;
doctors killed their patients under the guise of an old hex. As
the detective observed, “Once get it firmly established that a
series of deaths are supernatural . . . [and] you might almost
stab a man in broad daylight, and it would still be put down to
[a] curse, so strongly is the instinct of the supernatural
implanted in the human race.” [27] Which is perhaps another way
of saying that whites who spend too much time among primitives
become more primitive themselves.
...
Since “the boat was not full, most of the passengers had
accommodation on the deck. The entire forward part of this deck
was occupied by an observation saloon, all glass-enclosed, where
the passengers could sit and watch the river unfold before
them,” could watch the brown natives from a safe distance
ashore. [29]
...
A Mrs. Allerton too lamented the lack of peace whites enjoyed in
Egypt and the impossibility of “‘[getting] rid of some of these
awful children.’ A group of small black figures” had earlier
“surrounded her, all grinning and posturing and holding out
imploring hands as they lisped . . . hopefully . . . ‘they
closed in on [Mrs. Allerton] little by little’” until she yelled
“Imshi” brandishing her sunshade at them. They “scattered for a
minute or two. And then they came back and stared and stared,
and their eyes were simply disgusting, and so were their noses .
. . I don’t believe I really like children – not unless they’re
more or less washed and have the rudiments of manners.” [31] In
other words, Mrs. Allerton only found white children tolerable.
Even though murder quickly turned the cruise ship into a coffin,
it was at least devoid of nonwhite pests (save for the mostly
invisible serving staff). Readers got the distinct impression
that Poirot, Rosalie, Mrs. Allerton, et al. preferred the white
nightmare aboard the SS Death Trap to spending another minute
with the colored irritants on land.
...
That an insular group of affluent Europeans such as this one
assumed that their misbehavior would remain an internal matter,
that clear lines separating us from them existed, that colonized
peoples would not notice, nor infringe upon their white bubble —
that was perhaps the most striking feature of Christie’s
“colonial novels.”
...
The major enjoyed gallivanting in the colonial wilds and
appreciated the deference natives there paid to a man like
himself: an intrepid and commanding British explorer of means.
But when a “louse” like Shaitana, who preyed on the weaknesses
of white women, settled in the major’s own native land and began
to meddle in the business of Europeans — even setting them
against one another — that was disgusting. Despard knew
instinctively that Shaitana had crossed a line that white men
needed to vigilantly guard with their lives. The Syrian fiend
could rot in the same hell with which he affected so much
familiarity! He belonged nowhere near the Berkshire
Downs.[/quote]
#Post#: 5731--------------------------------------------------
Re: Colonialism as viewed by Westerners
By: rp Date: April 21, 2021, 10:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Subhuman YouTuber celebrates Western conquest of Japan because
he can now watch anime ****:
HTML https://youtu.be/_XEfrcBdgQo
#Post#: 5908--------------------------------------------------
Re: Colonialism as viewed by Westerners
By: 90sRetroFan Date: April 26, 2021, 10:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Rick Santorum proves he is not an American, but a Western
occupier and a believer in Manifest Destiny:
HTML https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/rick-santorum-native-american-culture-181043531.html
[quote]Rick Santorum Says 'Nothing' Was In America Before White
Colonizers Arrived
...
“We birthed a nation from nothing. I mean, there was nothing
here,” Santorum, a former Republican senator from Pennsylvania,
told students during remarks at a Young America’s Foundation
event. “I mean, yes, we have Native Americans, but candidly,
there isn’t much Native American culture in American culture.”
...
Santorum’s remarks, first flagged by Media Matters for America,
are as offensive as they are inaccurate.
Indigenous peoples had been living in America thousands of years
before European explorers showed up in the late 1400s and 1500s.
They had their own rich cultures and traditions. European
settlers tried to erase all of that by forcibly removing
Indigenous people from their lands, slaughtering them, infecting
them with new diseases, rounding them up and putting them on
reservations, breaking treaties with them and taking their
children from them and putting them into boarding schools to try
to assimilate them into white culture.
...
all kinds of aspects of Native American culture ― sports,
food, dance, art, languages, spiritual practices― are very
much a part of American culture today, even if Santorum may not
be aware of it.
Something else he may not be aware of: His own birthplace,
Winchester, Virginia, was a Shawnee Indian camping ground.
The former Republican senator’s comments sparked outrage on
Twitter, where at least one notable member of Congress
responded.
“Indigenous peoples are more American than Rick Santorum,”
tweeted Rep. Teresa Leger Fernandez (D-N.M.), chair of the House
subcommittee for Indigenous Peoples of the United States.
In a fiery statement to HuffPost, National Congress of American
Indians President Fawn Sharp said Santorum is an “unhinged and
embarrassing racist who disgraces CNN” and called on the media
outlet to fire him.
...
Make your choice. Do you stand with White Supremacists
justifying Native American genocide, or do you stand with Native
Americans?
To correct the record, what European colonizers found in the
Americas were thousands of complex, sophisticated, and sovereign
Tribal Nations, each with millennia of distinct cultural,
spiritual and technological development. Over millennia, they
bred, cultivated and showed the world how to utilize such plants
as cotton, rubber, chocolate, corn, potatoes, tomatoes and
tobacco. Imagine the history of the United States without the
economic contributions of cotton and tobacco alone. It’s
inconceivable.
Crystal Echo Hawk, the executive director of IllumiNative, a
nonprofit focused on combating the erasure of Native Americans,
also called on CNN to fire Santorum.
“American history that does not include Native peoples is a lie,
and Rick Santorum is fueling white supremacy by erasing the
history of Native peoples,” said Echo Hawk. “CNN must do more to
include Indigenous and diverse voices in its programming and
fire Rick Santorum.”
A request for comment from CNN was not immediately
returned.[/quote]
#Post#: 5941--------------------------------------------------
Colonialism as viewed by Westerners
By: rp Date: April 28, 2021, 11:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://twitter.com/Africa_Archives/status/1377596265446436868?s=19
[quote]
A picture from 1955 during the French occupation of the Congo,
when a father brought an African child in a cage to his
children at home for entertainment.
[img]
HTML https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ex40gFxWYAQvp5v?format=jpg&name=900x900[/img]
[/quote]
Notice the gleeful expression of the children. This illustrates
they are complicit. They are not children. They are demons,
created in the image of Yahweh.
#Post#: 5957--------------------------------------------------
Re: Colonialism as viewed by Westerners
By: guest5 Date: April 29, 2021, 10:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://p6.storage.canalblog.com/68/55/644773/127013635.jpg
#Post#: 5987--------------------------------------------------
Re: Colonialism as viewed by Westerners
By: guest5 Date: May 1, 2021, 12:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Rep Wants 'Good' Parts of Slavery Be Taught in Schools
[quote]This rep tried to suggest that there are ‘good’ parts to
slavery that should be taught in schools — and naturally got
shut down.[/quote]
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qkm5ayhB-4M
This rep also proved that no amount of schooling can help a
complete imbecile such as himself.
#Post#: 6042--------------------------------------------------
Re: Colonialism as viewed by Westerners
By: rp Date: May 2, 2021, 1:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Boris Johnson (Gentile) recites colonialist poem by racist
Rudyard Kipling in Myanmar temple:
HTML https://youtu.be/OqLIm0HOvuQ
#Post#: 7109--------------------------------------------------
Re: Colonialism as viewed by Westerners
By: 90sRetroFan Date: June 12, 2021, 10:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Well, this is an interpretation I have never heard before!
HTML https://www.yahoo.com/news/north-carolina-plantation-faces-controversy-220800419.html
[quote]NC plantation faces controversy for Juneteenth event
referring to slaveowners as ‘white refugees’
...
The post did not appear to mention how the formerly enslaved
were adjusting to their new freedom. Instead, the emphasis
seemed to be more on how the white people around them felt about
these perceived setbacks in their lives. Furthermore, the
enslaved are referred to only as “bondsmen,” and derisively
“living high on the hog.”[/quote]
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page