Australian Politics Forum - spineless apologetics

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #1050 - Dec 8^th, 2014 at 2:17pm

freediver wrote on Dec 8^th, 2014 at 12:29pm:

Gandalf it does not make sense to deliberately destroy a society you plan on becoming part of or ruling over. If people cannot even feed themselves, they are of no use to the ruling class.

I don't care what rationale you want to apply here - the facts speak for themselves: with both the Incas and the Aztecs, the Spanish overthrew the rulers and to all intents and purposes, overthrew the entire society - the decimation of these civilization was then completed after the majority of the population was wiped out by European diseases. The cities - the bedrock of any civilization - were all destroyed and built over by the Spanish. Native education, religion and culture was systematically eliminated and replaced with European/christian culture.

And thats not even mentioning the mass genocide of natives in North America by European settlers (including the infamous 'small pox blankets').

None of the European conquerors in the Americas were interested in becoming "part of" native culture - they were interested in a) building their own new state or empire, and b) exploiting the vast resources there. And to hell with the natives - they either become annihilated, forcefully integrated or used as forced labor to help the conquerors exploit their resources.

I'm so glad this conversation is in the 'spineless apologetics' thread - how appropriate.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #1051 - Dec 8^th, 2014 at 2:22pm

Karnal wrote on Dec 8^th, 2014 at 8:22am:

But there’s little proof for it. I’d say the opposite: the most democratic societies come from the most brutal oppression. Democracy does not just happen. It’s almost always fought for.

Australia is an exception.

It is if you dismiss the massacres and cultural genocide of the Aborigines.

Karnal wrote on Dec 8^th, 2014 at 12:41pm:

Are you really suggesting the Spanish did not destroy the Aztec and Incan empires? You'd have to be the first.

Indeed he would.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 95817
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #1052 - Dec 8^th, 2014 at 2:58pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 8^th, 2014 at 2:22pm:

Karnal wrote on Dec 8^th, 2014 at 8:22am:

But there’s little proof for it. I’d say the opposite: the most democratic societies come from the most brutal oppression. Democracy does not just happen. It’s almost always fought for.

Australia is an exception.

It is if you dismiss the massacres and cultural genocide of the Aborigines.

Karnal wrote on Dec 8^th, 2014 at 12:41pm:

Are you really suggesting the Spanish did not destroy the Aztec and Incan empires? You'd have to be the first.

Indeed he would.

FD's actually posted some good, intelligent posts here. I'm pleasantly surprised. I don't have to agree with them.

FD comes from the default position of liberal democracy - what the Yanks call a republic. He measures all other political systems throughout history according to this model. It's a rather Hegelian perspective (and very Eurocentric).

The problem with such a teleological point of view is that it measures the past according to the present. It measures other societies according to our own. Even a brief look at history highlights completely completely different mindsets to our own. Looking at past and traditional cultures from a modern, individualistic paradigm completely misses the point.

Back to top

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #1053 - Dec 8^th, 2014 at 3:46pm

Karnal wrote on Dec 8^th, 2014 at 2:58pm:

FD's actually posted some good, intelligent posts here. I'm pleasantly surprised. I don't have to agree with them.

FD comes from the default position of liberal democracy - what the Yanks call a republic. He measures all other political systems throughout history according to this model. It's a rather Hegelian perspective (and very Eurocentric).

The problem with such a teleological point of view is that it measures the past according to the present. It measures other societies according to our own. Even a brief look at history highlights completely completely different mindsets to our own. Looking at past and traditional cultures from a modern, individualistic paradigm completely misses the point.

FD's basically reciting from the Thomas Friedman/neo-liberal doctrine, whose article of faith is that US interventionism is both well intentioned and (on balance) a force for good. It is completely incapable of appreciating non-western perspectives who are on the receiving end of such intervention, dismissing any objections or resistance to anything and everything - except the intervention. The affected people are either haled as brave democratic heroes if they submit to the western overlords, or denounced as petulant children or terrorists (or in FD's case 'muslims') if they dare resist the aggression against them. Genocides and destructions of entire civilizations are whitewashed with the usual excuses - the conquerors were well intentioned, other factors were involved, and besides, the regime they replaced was probably just as bad. We see the same whitewashing to apologise anything from the Spanish Conquistadors genocides in South and Central America, to the US invasion of Iraq.

Its a tired, repetitive line that is chauvinistic, and not the least bit stimulating. If you really are interested in these arguments, just open up any mainstream US paper - they'll be chock full of them. Or simply tune into any of Obama's inane speeches on foreign policy. But most of the rest of the world will be rolling their eyes just like me.

The only thing remotely interesting about these "arguments" from FD - is that for once its not coming from an American.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Dec 8^th, 2014 at 3:54pm by polite_gandalf »

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 95817
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #1054 - Dec 8^th, 2014 at 5:00pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 8^th, 2014 at 3:46pm:

Karnal wrote on Dec 8^th, 2014 at 2:58pm:

FD's actually posted some good, intelligent posts here. I'm pleasantly surprised. I don't have to agree with them.

FD comes from the default position of liberal democracy - what the Yanks call a republic. He measures all other political systems throughout history according to this model. It's a rather Hegelian perspective (and very Eurocentric).

The problem with such a teleological point of view is that it measures the past according to the present. It measures other societies according to our own. Even a brief look at history highlights completely completely different mindsets to our own. Looking at past and traditional cultures from a modern, individualistic paradigm completely misses the point.

FD's basically reciting from the Thomas Friedman/neo-liberal doctrine, whose article of faith is that US interventionism is both well intentioned and (on balance) a force for good. It is completely incapable of appreciating non-western perspectives who are on the receiving end of such intervention, dismissing any objections or resistance to anything and everything - except the intervention. The affected people are either haled as brave democratic heroes if they submit to the western overlords, or denounced as petulant children or terrorists (or in FD's case 'muslims') if they dare resist the aggression against them. Genocides and destructions of entire civilizations are whitewashed with the usual excuses - the conquerors were well intentioned, other factors were involved, and besides, the regime they replaced was probably just as bad. We see the same whitewashing to apologise anything from the Spanish Conquistadors genocides in South and Central America, to the US invasion of Iraq.

Its a tired, repetitive line that is chauvinistic, and not the least bit stimulating. If you really are interested in these arguments, just open up any mainstream US paper - they'll be chock full of them. Or simply tune into any of Obama's inane speeches on foreign policy. But most of the rest of the world will be rolling their eyes just like me.

The only thing remotely interesting about these "arguments" from FD - is that for once its not coming from an American.

Very true. But it’s good to see FD actually making a coherent point.

And to some extent, there’s some validity to it. Plenty of people in the developing world do want to be modern, developed and Westernised. Obama’s speeches don’t fall on deaf ears, even if people do roll their eyes.

Obama is one president who has some knowledge of the developing world, having lived in Indonesia. FD, on the other hand, seems to have a very limited knowledge of non-Western, developing issues. He works from the assumption that all people want to be like us, and if they don’t, there’s something sinister about them.

But this is not entirely wrong. Western values are universal. Liberal principles can be applied to different cultures. If Tibet, for example, was able to be autonomous and representative its people would be far happier than they currently are. People in Hong Kong are struggling for this right as we speak.

Western imperialism and political autonomy are quite different things, although their presentation overlaps in the media we receive. It would be good to see Australia play a role as a soft middle power. It’s perfectly placed to broker a middle way between US/Euro-centrism and developing Asia. It would have been nice to see the Australia Network have a role rather than parroting the CNN/BBC view of the world.

Alas, not with the grown-ups in charge it won’t.

Back to top

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #1055 - Dec 8^th, 2014 at 5:21pm

Karnal wrote on Dec 8^th, 2014 at 5:00pm:

Western imperialism and political autonomy are quite different things, although their presentation overlaps in the media we receive.

Quite right. Iraq is an interesting case in point. People look at Iraqi democracy and assume its "mission accomplished" for US intervention. In fact its a defeat of US intervention - Iraqis have, despite strenuous US efforts to prevent it, created a regime that is a virtual client of the very regional power the US invasion was supposed to be thwarting - Iran. Not many people pick up on this, but Noam Chomsky is one:

Quote:

Take the US invasion of Iraq, for example. To everyone except a dedicated ideologue, it was pretty obvious that we invaded Iraq not because of our love of democracy but because it’s maybe the second- or third-largest source of oil in the world, and is right in the middle of the major energy-producing region. You’re not supposed to say this. It’s considered a conspiracy theory.

The United States was seriously defeated in Iraq by Iraqi nationalism – mostly by nonviolent resistance. The United States could kill the insurgents, but they couldn’t deal with half a million people demonstrating in the streets. Step by step, Iraq was able to dismantle the controls put in place by the occupying forces. By November 2007, it was becoming pretty clear that it was going to be very hard to reach US goals. And at that point, interestingly, those goals were explicitly stated. So in November 2007 the Bush II administration came out with an official declaration about what any future arrangement with Iraq would have to be. It had two major requirements: one, that the United States must be free to carry out combat operations from its military bases, which it will retain; and, two, “encouraging the flow of foreign investments to Iraq, especially American investments”. In January 2008, Bush made this clear in one of his signing statements. A couple of months later, in the face of Iraqi resistance, the United States had to give that up. Control of Iraq is now disappearing before their eyes.

Iraq was an attempt to reinstitute by force something like the old system of control, but it was beaten back. In general, I think, US policies remain constant, going back to the second world war. But the capacity to implement them is declining.

https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/us-control-is-diminishing-but-it-still-thinks-it-o...

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

Karnal Gold Member Online Australian Politics Posts: 95817 Gender:	Re: spineless apologetics Reply #1056 - Dec 8^th, 2014 at 5:59pm Yes, and ISIL is the Sunni counter-force. More specifically, it’s led by ex-Ba’athists and the remnants of Saddam’s old Republican Guard, those the US occupation banned from government. The next South Korea? Shurely shome mishtake.
Back to top	IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #1057 - Dec 8^th, 2014 at 6:56pm

Karnal wrote on Dec 8^th, 2014 at 2:58pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 8^th, 2014 at 2:22pm:

Karnal wrote on Dec 8^th, 2014 at 8:22am:

But there’s little proof for it. I’d say the opposite: the most democratic societies come from the most brutal oppression. Democracy does not just happen. It’s almost always fought for.

Australia is an exception.

It is if you dismiss the massacres and cultural genocide of the Aborigines.

Karnal wrote on Dec 8^th, 2014 at 12:41pm:

Are you really suggesting the Spanish did not destroy the Aztec and Incan empires? You'd have to be the first.

Indeed he would.

FD's actually posted some good, intelligent posts here. I'm pleasantly surprised. I don't have to agree with them.

FD comes from the default position of liberal democracy - what the Yanks call a republic. He measures all other political systems throughout history according to this model. It's a rather Hegelian perspective (and very Eurocentric).

The problem with such a teleological point of view is that it measures the past according to the present. It measures other societies according to our own. Even a brief look at history highlights completely completely different mindsets to our own. Looking at past and traditional cultures from a modern, individualistic paradigm completely misses the point.

And what other perspective can you have, besides your own? WHat is your 'paradigm'? Seventh century Arab? Dreamtime Aborigine?

Tell us, what's it like being a bat? You know that one, don't you?

The problem is not perspective - you cannot NOT have one - the point is to know that you have a perspective and it's not God's own.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49042
At my desk.

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #1058 - Dec 8^th, 2014 at 7:14pm

Quote:

The Spanish were not originally there for settlement. They were there to find gold.

It only took about a dozen of them to find it. That is not exactly the period we are discussing.

Quote:

Are you really suggesting the Spanish did not destroy the Aztec and Incan empires?

They destroyed the leadership, and put themselves in it's place. Right throughout South America, the Spanish settlers were attracted to the empires precisely because there was a social structure already in place for them to capitalise on. Where there was no social structure, they paid little attention, to the extent that the most primitive societies survived almost untouched until very recently in history.

Quote:

Not exactly, FD. The Yanks had a little get together called the Boston Tea Party.

So the Yanks are an example of the most democratic societies coming from the most brutal oppression?

Quote:

I don't care what rationale you want to apply here - the facts speak for themselves: with both the Incas and the Aztecs, the Spanish overthrew the rulers and to all intents and purposes, overthrew the entire society - the decimation of these civilization was then completed after the majority of the population was wiped out by European diseases.

I am not sure if you are asking me to condemn the Spanish for European diseases, but beyond that you aren't really saying much different to what I am. The Spanish did not build a new society from the ground up. There is no such thing as a city that is not built upon it's destroyed former self.

Quote:

The cities - the bedrock of any civilization - were all destroyed and built over by the Spanish.

Modern day Mexico city is the old Aztec capital. The Spanish did not go there to show them how to build cities properly.

Quote:

FD's basically reciting from the Thomas Friedman/neo-liberal doctrine, whose article of faith is that US interventionism is both well intentioned and (on balance) a force for good.

You could always settle for what I actually post.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #1059 - Dec 8^th, 2014 at 7:36pm

Karnal wrote on Dec 8^th, 2014 at 5:59pm:

Yes, and ISIL is the Sunni counter-force. More specifically, it’s led by ex-Ba’athists and the remnants of Saddam’s old Republican Guard, those the US occupation banned from government.

The next South Korea?

Shurely shome mishtake.

And thats why so many people have been prophesising the breaking up of Iraq into 3 states - sunni-arab, kurdish and shiite. Personally I think there's still an opportunity to bring the sunnis back into the fold. Maliki was the big road block - he spent nearly 10 years maneuvering the apparatuses of state to ensure the sunnis remained excluded and alienated - building on the tremendously destructive "de-baathification" policy of the Bremer years. But now he is gone, and there are signs of a more conciliatory government. We know the sunnis will "play ball" against the islamists if given the right incentive - as they did when they turned against AQ in Iraq and drove them out.

These Baathists are an interesting bunch though - they were the ones who kick-started the insurgency way back in 2003. Apparently Saddam had been planning it for quite a while - setting up guerilla units and arms caches around the place. Remember Rumsfeld's mantra at the time? They were "dead enders" - and at that stage it was actually pretty close to the truth - Saddam loyalists acting as Iraq's "werwolves". I never really was able to pinpoint when it transitioned from an insurgency of centrally commanded "dead ender" baathists, to a full blown grassroot resistance operation. But the causes are crystal clear - the mass sacking of virtually the entire public service (replaced by US run and exclusively US manned contractors like Betchtell and Halliburtan), and the complete subverting of grassroots democratic movements (including shooting unarmed protestors) and other similar brilliant policy moves by Bremer.

And all the while I assumed these baathists who started the whole thing must have just either died a natural death, or were ruthlessly wiped out when the islamists moved in. Apparently not so - for here they are again, teamed up with the most ruthless islamists we've seen yet. Have they converted? Or have they simply made a pact of mutual convenience? Either way, they've proved to be a tenacious group.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49042
At my desk.

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #1060 - Dec 11^th, 2014 at 3:56pm

On the Halal rorting of the Australian beef industry:

|dev|null wrote on Dec 11^th, 2014 at 3:18pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 11^th, 2014 at 2:57pm:

Quote:

Who cares?

Many people care. The farmers who are getting ripped off care. The people who become victims of whatever is done with the money care. The people on both sides who pay higher prices for food care. The people trying to push for free trade care (I admit there are very few Muslims among them). The people who want to maintain our sovereignty care. The people who have a spine care. Even Gandalf cares enough about the image of it to try to pass off Indonesia as a secular state. Do you think he cares whether they make a liar of him?

Then care in your own personal jurisdiction. If you're a farmer, don't sell your product. If you're a consumer, don't buy the product.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

|dev|null

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4434
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #1061 - Dec 11^th, 2014 at 4:03pm

freediver wrote on Dec 11^th, 2014 at 3:56pm:

On the Halal rorting of the Australian beef industry:

|dev|null wrote on Dec 11^th, 2014 at 3:18pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 11^th, 2014 at 2:57pm:

Quote:

Who cares?

Many people care. The farmers who are getting ripped off care. The people who become victims of whatever is done with the money care. The people on both sides who pay higher prices for food care. The people trying to push for free trade care (I admit there are very few Muslims among them). The people who want to maintain our sovereignty care. The people who have a spine care. Even Gandalf cares enough about the image of it to try to pass off Indonesia as a secular state. Do you think he cares whether they make a liar of him?

Then care in your own personal jurisdiction. If you're a farmer, don't sell your product. If you're a consumer, don't buy the product.

And what is exactly wrong with that statement FD? How is it "apologetic"? It is simple economic sense. You as an individual can use your economic power how you want - you can choose to sell or buy. Gandalf's right, you really do have problems understanding simple economics. Grin

Back to top

"Pens and books are the weapons that defeat terrorism." - Malala Yousefzai, 2013.

"we will never ever solve violence while we grasp for overly simplistic solutions."
Freediver, 2007.

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 95817
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #1062 - Dec 11^th, 2014 at 4:46pm

Soren wrote on Dec 8^th, 2014 at 6:56pm:

Karnal wrote on Dec 8^th, 2014 at 2:58pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 8^th, 2014 at 2:22pm:

Karnal wrote on Dec 8^th, 2014 at 8:22am:

But there’s little proof for it. I’d say the opposite: the most democratic societies come from the most brutal oppression. Democracy does not just happen. It’s almost always fought for.

Australia is an exception.

It is if you dismiss the massacres and cultural genocide of the Aborigines.

Karnal wrote on Dec 8^th, 2014 at 12:41pm:

Are you really suggesting the Spanish did not destroy the Aztec and Incan empires? You'd have to be the first.

Indeed he would.

FD's actually posted some good, intelligent posts here. I'm pleasantly surprised. I don't have to agree with them.

FD comes from the default position of liberal democracy - what the Yanks call a republic. He measures all other political systems throughout history according to this model. It's a rather Hegelian perspective (and very Eurocentric).

The problem with such a teleological point of view is that it measures the past according to the present. It measures other societies according to our own. Even a brief look at history highlights completely completely different mindsets to our own. Looking at past and traditional cultures from a modern, individualistic paradigm completely misses the point.

And what other perspective can you have, besides your own?

None other, old boy, but the smug, arrogant perspective that your own system of values is inherently superior to all others without question is optional.

No one has the right to not be offended, eh?

Present company excluded.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Online www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 49042 At my desk.	Re: spineless apologetics Reply #1063 - Dec 11^th, 2014 at 5:27pm Freedom, democracy, human rights - this system of values is superior to all others. This perspective is optional, but also entirely correct and appropriate. You chose the correct thread to suggest we should feel shame in this certainty.
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

|dev|null

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4434
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #1064 - Dec 11^th, 2014 at 5:47pm

freediver wrote on Dec 11^th, 2014 at 5:27pm:

Freedom, democracy, human rights - this system of values is superior to all others. This perspective is optional, but also entirely correct and appropriate. You chose the correct thread to suggest we should feel shame in this certainty.

Your freedom does not include freedom to worship.
Your democracy does not respect democratic rights for those you disagree with.
Your human rights aren't extended to Muslims.

You make a mockery of those concepts. For you, they are not universal, for you they are selective and only to be extended to those who you believe support your views. Grin

Back to top

"Pens and books are the weapons that defeat terrorism." - Malala Yousefzai, 2013.

"we will never ever solve violence while we grasp for overly simplistic solutions."
Freediver, 2007.

IP Logged