Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Dark Dreams of Furiae - a new module for NWN:EE! Buy now
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

Politics. The feel in your country.

1479480482484485635

Comments

  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
    I'm not an expert on US history but civil war is not really compromise.

    semiticgoddessProont
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,793



    Was the White man that created the best nations in world. Even the white minority regions like Bermuda(British territory) is only rich because the institutions developed by Europeans. I an not saying that whites din`t made bad things because Bolshevik ideologies and left ideologies come from white man.

    You do know that the Caribbean is prominently black because of the slave trade.

    Saying that Europeans is only rich because the institutions developed by Europeans is negating the fact that they got rich by exploiting other cultures.

  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 6,964
    deltago said:



    Was the White man that created the best nations in world. Even the white minority regions like Bermuda(British territory) is only rich because the institutions developed by Europeans. I an not saying that whites din`t made bad things because Bolshevik ideologies and left ideologies come from white man.

    You do know that the Caribbean is prominently black because of the slave trade.

    Saying that Europeans is only rich because the institutions developed by Europeans is negating the fact that they got rich by exploiting other cultures.
    It's only in modern history that this is seen as a bad thing. The founding fathers and other philosophers in Europe and elsewhere are the reason we think the way we do now. Back then it was par for the course!

  • SorcererV1ct0rSorcererV1ct0r Member Posts: 2,166
    deltago said:



    Was the White man that created the best nations in world. Even the white minority regions like Bermuda(British territory) is only rich because the institutions developed by Europeans. I an not saying that whites din`t made bad things because Bolshevik ideologies and left ideologies come from white man.

    You do know that the Caribbean is prominently black because of the slave trade.

    Saying that Europeans is only rich because the institutions developed by Europeans is negating the fact that they got rich by exploiting other cultures.
    - Richest country in Europe : Switzerland
    - Last country to end slavery : Sudan

    Sudan only ended slavery in 2005. Switzerland din`t had any colony... Also Portugal had a lot of colonies and if compared with Switzerland is very poor. About Caribbean, the ""Europeanest"" region of Latin America is Patagonia. Compare Chilean and Argentine Patagonia with Caribbean region.

  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,793
    Balrog99 said:

    deltago said:



    Was the White man that created the best nations in world. Even the white minority regions like Bermuda(British territory) is only rich because the institutions developed by Europeans. I an not saying that whites din`t made bad things because Bolshevik ideologies and left ideologies come from white man.

    You do know that the Caribbean is prominently black because of the slave trade.

    Saying that Europeans is only rich because the institutions developed by Europeans is negating the fact that they got rich by exploiting other cultures.
    It's only in modern history that this is seen as a bad thing. The founding fathers and other philosophers in Europe and elsewhere are the reason we think the way we do now. Back then it was par for the course!
    As I explained prior, it was the Slave trade to the Caribbean that 'changed' how slaving worked. It was these changes where Quakers began to question the morality of it to the point of abolishment, but it took decades to get there.

    from wiki:

    Concurrent with the rise of sugar came large-scale and intensive exploitation of slave labor, and here too Drax was a notorious pioneer. Prior to 1640, the primary source of labor in Barbados had been European indentured servants. Although there were African slaves in Barbados before this point, it was only after 1640, and frequently in tandem with the cultivation of sugar, that slave labor began to supplant indentured servitude as the chief mode of production. Drax was deeply involved in this transition, acquiring 22 slaves in early 1642, just as he was getting involved in sugar.[6] In 1644, he purchased another 34 slaves.[7] By the early 1650s, his huge estate was manned by some 200 slaves of African descent.[8] The model of intensive slave labor, organized into work gangs, and disciplined through ubiquitous violence, also quickly spread through the Caribbean, going hand-in-hand with sugar production.


    "indentured servants" was the norm of European slaves prior to the Sugar trade.

    ThacoBell
  • semiticgoddesssemiticgoddess Member Posts: 14,827
    @SorcererV1ct0r: I don't think you really need to defend the moral character of majority-white countries here. I hear people saying that this or that country did this bad thing, but I don't hear anyone saying that Switzerland is the moral inferior of Sudan, or that the United States or any other majority-white country is evil.

    Such views exist--there are people who think whiteness and crimes against humanity are synonymous--but they've not been voiced in this thread before. You're arguing against an idea that no one here is espousing.

  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 6,964

    deltago said:



    Was the White man that created the best nations in world. Even the white minority regions like Bermuda(British territory) is only rich because the institutions developed by Europeans. I an not saying that whites din`t made bad things because Bolshevik ideologies and left ideologies come from white man.

    You do know that the Caribbean is prominently black because of the slave trade.

    Saying that Europeans is only rich because the institutions developed by Europeans is negating the fact that they got rich by exploiting other cultures.
    - Richest country in Europe : Switzerland
    - Last country to end slavery : Sudan

    Sudan only ended slavery in 2005. Switzerland din`t had any colony... Also Portugal had a lot of colonies and if compared with Switzerland is very poor. About Caribbean, the ""Europeanest"" region of Latin America is Patagonia. Compare Chilean and Argentine Patagonia with Caribbean region.
    Switzerland is land-locked and I'm pretty sure that had some influence on how their history developed.

    I like your unique point of view but I'm not sure you understand the situational differences. The Slavs were enslaved, but they were never uprooted from their place of origin and moved against their will halfway around the world. It's not an apples to apples comparison. Believe it or not I would be considered right-wing by many on this forum but I don't disagree that there is a problem. My disagreements with the left are on what should be done to solve it...

  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
    Yeah I never even got around to arguing the actual solution of affirmative action because we got so hung up on my questioning of the reason behind it lol

    Balrog99
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 6,964

    Yeah I never even got around to arguing the actual solution of affirmative action because we got so hung up on my questioning of the reason behind it lol

    The solution is time. That isn't the solution people like to hear however...

    ThacoBell
  • SorcererV1ct0rSorcererV1ct0r Member Posts: 2,166

    @SorcererV1ct0r: I don't think you really need to defend the moral character of majority-white countries here. I hear people saying that this or that country did this bad thing, but I don't hear anyone saying that Switzerland is the moral inferior of Sudan, or that the United States or any other majority-white country is evil.

    Such views exist--there are people who think whiteness and crimes against humanity are synonymous--but they've not been voiced in this thread before. You're arguing against an idea that no one here is espousing.

    Read what he said "is negating the fact that they got rich by exploiting other cultures. "

    My point mentioning Switzerland is that a country can be rich without colonialism. Bermuda is an example of country that is pretty rich, in some aspects better than USA and his population is mostly african descendant.

    semiticgoddess
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 6,964

    @SorcererV1ct0r: I don't think you really need to defend the moral character of majority-white countries here. I hear people saying that this or that country did this bad thing, but I don't hear anyone saying that Switzerland is the moral inferior of Sudan, or that the United States or any other majority-white country is evil.

    Such views exist--there are people who think whiteness and crimes against humanity are synonymous--but they've not been voiced in this thread before. You're arguing against an idea that no one here is espousing.

    Read what he said "is negating the fact that they got rich by exploiting other cultures. "

    My point mentioning Switzerland is that a country can be rich without colonialism. Bermuda is an example of country that is pretty rich, in some aspects better than USA and his population is mostly african descendant.
    They traded with other peoples that DID get rich off colonialism. Just because they became the bankers instead of the exploiters doesn't mean they're blameless...

    ThacoBell
  • SorcererV1ct0rSorcererV1ct0r Member Posts: 2,166
    Balrog99 said:

    @SorcererV1ct0r: I don't think you really need to defend the moral character of majority-white countries here. I hear people saying that this or that country did this bad thing, but I don't hear anyone saying that Switzerland is the moral inferior of Sudan, or that the United States or any other majority-white country is evil.

    Such views exist--there are people who think whiteness and crimes against humanity are synonymous--but they've not been voiced in this thread before. You're arguing against an idea that no one here is espousing.

    Read what he said "is negating the fact that they got rich by exploiting other cultures. "

    My point mentioning Switzerland is that a country can be rich without colonialism. Bermuda is an example of country that is pretty rich, in some aspects better than USA and his population is mostly african descendant.
    They traded with other peoples that DID get rich off colonialism. Just because they became the bankers instead of the exploiters doesn't mean they're blameless...
    Some African countries never had any kind of colonization. Some first world country become third world and some third world become first world; examples? Argentina, was the 11th richest country in world and now still better than other south american countries, but is at best comparable to a poor European country. Singapore was EXPELLED from Malaysia and now is extreme rich.

    The forced annexations of Soviets was far worse than any kind of western colonialism. I rather live in any British territory on Americas(Falklands, Bermuda, British virgin islands) than live under holodomor.

  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,793

    @SorcererV1ct0r: I don't think you really need to defend the moral character of majority-white countries here. I hear people saying that this or that country did this bad thing, but I don't hear anyone saying that Switzerland is the moral inferior of Sudan, or that the United States or any other majority-white country is evil.

    Such views exist--there are people who think whiteness and crimes against humanity are synonymous--but they've not been voiced in this thread before. You're arguing against an idea that no one here is espousing.

    Read what he said "is negating the fact that they got rich by exploiting other cultures. "

    My point mentioning Switzerland is that a country can be rich without colonialism. Bermuda is an example of country that is pretty rich, in some aspects better than USA and his population is mostly african descendant.
    Switzerland staying out of WW2 and financing both sides had a thing to do with thier economy.

    A country with limited natural resources doesn't get rich otherwise.

    ThacoBellProont
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 6,964

    Balrog99 said:

    @SorcererV1ct0r: I don't think you really need to defend the moral character of majority-white countries here. I hear people saying that this or that country did this bad thing, but I don't hear anyone saying that Switzerland is the moral inferior of Sudan, or that the United States or any other majority-white country is evil.

    Such views exist--there are people who think whiteness and crimes against humanity are synonymous--but they've not been voiced in this thread before. You're arguing against an idea that no one here is espousing.

    Read what he said "is negating the fact that they got rich by exploiting other cultures. "

    My point mentioning Switzerland is that a country can be rich without colonialism. Bermuda is an example of country that is pretty rich, in some aspects better than USA and his population is mostly african descendant.
    They traded with other peoples that DID get rich off colonialism. Just because they became the bankers instead of the exploiters doesn't mean they're blameless...
    Some African countries never had any kind of colonization. Some first world country become third world and some third world become first world; examples? Argentina, was the 11th richest country in world and now still better than other south american countries, but is at best comparable to a poor European country. Singapore was EXPELLED from Malaysia and now is extreme rich.

    The forced annexations of Soviets was far worse than any kind of western colonialism. I rather live in any British territory on Americas(Falklands, Bermuda, British virgin islands) than live under holodomor.
    Again, you're looking at things from your perspective only. The reason for colonialism was not to help the countries that were colonized. It may have helped some of them but certainly not all. It did enrich the colonial powers at the expense of those colonized. The ramifications of that may not have been known at the time by the colonized countries because they were far behind in 'modernization'. However, it is widely known now by all. I don't disagree that it helped some cultures, but the cultures that didn't see things the same way as the West WERE exploited. To look at the way of life of those cultures as 'primitive' is true in that they were ripe for exploitation but it doesn't justify that exploitation. Modern thinking has evolved beyond that (for the most part anyway).

    semiticgoddessThacoBellProont
  • booinyoureyesbooinyoureyes Member Posts: 6,162
    deltago said:


    A country with limited natural resources doesn't get rich otherwise.

    Hong Kong, Liechtenstein, and Luxembourg have virtually no natural resources but have great economic success. Some nations with tremendous natural resources are poor. Even worse, others with natural resources enact feudal-like systems that ensure only the well-connected benefit.

    At the end of the day, institutions really do matter, often more so than natural resources.

    Balrog99semiticgoddessSorcererV1ct0rProont
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 6,964

    deltago said:


    A country with limited natural resources doesn't get rich otherwise.

    Hong Kong, Liechtenstein, and Luxembourg have virtually no natural resources but have great economic success. Some nations with tremendous natural resources are poor. Even worse, others with natural resources enact feudal-like systems that ensure only the well-connected benefit.

    At the end of the day, institutions really do matter, often more so than natural resources.
    Again, those nations are involved in banking and finance for the most part. That does not mean they're blameless of the sins of those whom they deal with. The Swiss made money off the Nazis, Liechtenstein ditto. Hong Kong benefited by being the best way to trade with communist China and their vast market for many years.

  • SorcererV1ct0rSorcererV1ct0r Member Posts: 2,166
    deltago said:

    @SorcererV1ct0r: I don't think you really need to defend the moral character of majority-white countries here. I hear people saying that this or that country did this bad thing, but I don't hear anyone saying that Switzerland is the moral inferior of Sudan, or that the United States or any other majority-white country is evil.

    Such views exist--there are people who think whiteness and crimes against humanity are synonymous--but they've not been voiced in this thread before. You're arguing against an idea that no one here is espousing.

    Read what he said "is negating the fact that they got rich by exploiting other cultures. "

    My point mentioning Switzerland is that a country can be rich without colonialism. Bermuda is an example of country that is pretty rich, in some aspects better than USA and his population is mostly african descendant.
    Switzerland staying out of WW2 and financing both sides had a thing to do with thier economy.

    A country with limited natural resources doesn't get rich otherwise.
    So you admit that trade, human capital and institutions > natural resources?

    deltago said:


    A country with limited natural resources doesn't get rich otherwise.

    Hong Kong, Liechtenstein, and Luxembourg have virtually no natural resources but have great economic success. Some nations with tremendous natural resources are poor. Even worse, others with natural resources enact feudal-like systems that ensure only the well-connected benefit.

    At the end of the day, institutions really do matter, often more so than natural resources.
    Well said. That is what i an trying to say.

  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 6,964
    edited February 2018

    deltago said:

    @SorcererV1ct0r: I don't think you really need to defend the moral character of majority-white countries here. I hear people saying that this or that country did this bad thing, but I don't hear anyone saying that Switzerland is the moral inferior of Sudan, or that the United States or any other majority-white country is evil.

    Such views exist--there are people who think whiteness and crimes against humanity are synonymous--but they've not been voiced in this thread before. You're arguing against an idea that no one here is espousing.

    Read what he said "is negating the fact that they got rich by exploiting other cultures. "

    My point mentioning Switzerland is that a country can be rich without colonialism. Bermuda is an example of country that is pretty rich, in some aspects better than USA and his population is mostly african descendant.
    Switzerland staying out of WW2 and financing both sides had a thing to do with thier economy.

    A country with limited natural resources doesn't get rich otherwise.
    So you admit that trade, human capital and institutions > natural resources?

    deltago said:


    A country with limited natural resources doesn't get rich otherwise.

    Hong Kong, Liechtenstein, and Luxembourg have virtually no natural resources but have great economic success. Some nations with tremendous natural resources are poor. Even worse, others with natural resources enact feudal-like systems that ensure only the well-connected benefit.

    At the end of the day, institutions really do matter, often more so than natural resources.
    Well said. That is what i an trying to say.
    As an aside, how is Moldavia doing? Or Croatia? Mongolia? Those are land-locked countries not involved with finance and resource poor.

    Edit: Central African Republic and South Sudan are examples in Africa as well.

    semiticgoddess
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,793

    deltago said:


    A country with limited natural resources doesn't get rich otherwise.

    Hong Kong, Liechtenstein, and Luxembourg have virtually no natural resources but have great economic success. Some nations with tremendous natural resources are poor. Even worse, others with natural resources enact feudal-like systems that ensure only the well-connected benefit.

    At the end of the day, institutions really do matter, often more so than natural resources.
    Let me rephrase:

    It can be said Switzerland (and more so Liechtenstein) exploited a situation to get its economy to where it is today and one can not compare today's economic success without looking at the country's history.

    Luxembourgh had steel to first drive its economy straddled by 2 rich countries (France and Germany) to buy. Its role in creating the EU is another reason that its economy is still high.

    Hong Kong was a British Territory until recently and one of the few friendly ports to Western countries in that region.

    Balrog99ThacoBell
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 6,964
    deltago said:

    deltago said:


    A country with limited natural resources doesn't get rich otherwise.

    Hong Kong, Liechtenstein, and Luxembourg have virtually no natural resources but have great economic success. Some nations with tremendous natural resources are poor. Even worse, others with natural resources enact feudal-like systems that ensure only the well-connected benefit.

    At the end of the day, institutions really do matter, often more so than natural resources.
    Let me rephrase:

    It can be said Switzerland (and more so Liechtenstein) exploited a situation to get its economy to where it is today and one can not compare today's economic success without looking at the country's history.

    Luxembourgh had steel to first drive its economy straddled by 2 rich countries (France and Germany) to buy. Its role in creating the EU is another reason that its economy is still high.

    Hong Kong was a British Territory until recently and one of the few friendly ports to Western countries in that region.
    Hong Kong even managed to keep it's friendliness to Western powers after being integrated into China. That's not by accident!

    ThacoBell
  • booinyoureyesbooinyoureyes Member Posts: 6,162
    deltago said:


    Hong Kong was a British Territory until recently and one of the few friendly ports to Western countries in that region.

    So were Mumbai and Kalkuta. Saigan was a friendly port to the West as well when under French rule. You can say the same for many Caribbean nations.

    Worse, you can say that about Capetown as well. Little good it did them!

  • Mantis37Mantis37 Member Posts: 1,136
    It has been argued that natural resources can exacerbate existing conflicts and nexuses of corruption in countries which do not have established institutions and centres of governance. For example this paper discusses Sub- Saharan Africa.

    http://www.uq.edu.au/economics/abstract/406.pdf

    booinyoureyesBalrog99
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 6,964

    deltago said:


    Hong Kong was a British Territory until recently and one of the few friendly ports to Western countries in that region.

    So were Mumbai and Kalkuta. Saigan was a friendly port to the West as well when under French rule. You can say the same for many Caribbean nations.

    Worse, you can say that about Capetown as well. Little good it did them!
    Capetown didn't have access to a major trading nation other than South Africa itself, so that held it back. Once the Suez and Panama canals were completed it lost it's significance. Mumbai (Bombay) and Kalkuta (Calcutta) are still major trade cities due to the significance of India. Saigon (Ho Chi Minh City) will likely rise to significance again now that Vietnam is rejoining the global economy. The Caribbean nations are starting to modernize as well (exemplified by Costa Rica and Mexico). I wouldn't bet against Cuba joining the global economy soon either. Even North Korea seems to be reconsidering their position (not sure if that's just hopeful thinking but South Korea has said that the North is willing to talk). That would only leave a handful of pariah nations (Russia being the most significant) and some African nations on the outside. Exciting times to be a human being really!

  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 6,964

    Big news from China: the Chinese Communist Party has proposed removing the term limits for the party leader. If this goes through--and there's little reason it shouldn't; there's no one to stand in the way--Xi Jinping, the current president, could lead the country indefinitely.

    Typically, the president is limited to a term of 10 years, as established by the heavy restructuring under Deng Xiaoping (often called the father of modern China or at least the modern Chinese economy). That limit was meant to avoid stagnation under aging leaders. Removing it is a very big step away from China's pseudo-meritocratic order and towards one-man rule.

    Not surprising considering the Eastern culture of venerating elders. I doubt it will stem the tide of modernization in the long run. Putin is doing the same thing in Russia. In some ways the Republican Party serves that purpose in the U.S. Change too quickly can lead to chaos. Long-term thinking can actually keep things from getting out of hand. If his past performance is any indication, I'm not too worried that Xi Jinping will abuse his power. There is the possibility that if he gets too old somebody behind the scenes will be the puppet master though...

  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456

    Big news from China: the Chinese Communist Party has proposed removing the term limits for the party leader. If this goes through--and there's little reason it shouldn't; there's no one to stand in the way--Xi Jinping, the current president, could lead the country indefinitely.

    I never knew he was immortal ;)

    semiticgoddessBalrog99Proont
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 6,964

    Big news from China: the Chinese Communist Party has proposed removing the term limits for the party leader. If this goes through--and there's little reason it shouldn't; there's no one to stand in the way--Xi Jinping, the current president, could lead the country indefinitely.

    I never knew he was immortal ;)
    Chinese Emperors were Gods remember? Apparently they were Gods that died regularly though. Kind of like pharaohs in that regard...

    FinneousPJProont
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 6,964
    I can't believe I'm almost singlehandedly taking on @SorcererV1ct0r here. I'm thinking I'm going to have my Conservative American card revoked soon!

    FinneousPJProont
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
This discussion has been closed.