58
59

Let's enslave EVERYBODY (self.badhistory)

NavyReenactor が 投稿

Here we have the learned Atheist101 declaiming:

"MFW someone on reddit actually defense [sic] colonialism which enslaved everyone that wasnt [sic] white"

[https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/6id413/comment/dj5iiyl]

No evidence is given, but of course we must believe him since he "live and breathe this shit bud" and claims to have a degree in political science, presumably having submitted his thesis in crayon.

Back in the real world slavery was done by people of every hue to people of every hue, and there was certainly plenty within the various European empires, but to say that colonialism enslaved "everyone that wasnt white" is obviously wrong. You can prove this very simply by pointing out a few of the non-white people that were not enslaved: for example Captain John Perkins a non-white, and non-enslaved, Royal Navy officer who gained his first command in 1778.

But perhaps attitudes changed after 1778? Presumably not in 1807 with the abolition of the slave trade, nor in 1824 when Britain defined participation in the slave trade as piracy and punishable by death, nor in 1833 with the abolition of slavery throughout the empire.

Or perhaps this powerful "white" empire was still not powerful enough to enslave everyone that wasn't white up to the 1830s. If this is the case then surely it must have happened as the largest ever "white" empire reached its maximum power and was expanding through non-"white" Africa. There must surely have been a huge expansion of slavery as they enslaved everyone that wasn't white. Except it did not happen, because by this time they had both banned slavery and were actively trying to suppress it within its territory and through treaties.

全 25 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]CoJack-ish 94 ポイント95 ポイント  (14子コメント)

Vast oversimplifications of the broad and complicated history of European expansion really do a disservice to the atrocities and injustices caused by colonialism.

[–]khosikuluadhomomnom attacker 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well, that sort understands things only as "muh explotashun = muh slavurey" usually as an adjunct to something about how a part time job delivering pizzas while living in their mother's basements is the equal of plantation slavery or, in arguably its closest recent analogue, corvee labor under the Estado Novo (or the brutalities of Leopold's Congo Free State). One can make a valid historical argument that this was slavery in all but name--and actual slave systems, involving servitude of a social and arbitrary nature between classes, did exist within European empires, just with changed names ("Oh, this is my aunt/cousin/whatever" as in Northern Nigeria through the eve of WWII) and it exists in many places today. But it wasn't universal, and it didn't always exist because of colonialism. That eliminates all the stripes of nuance that help us explain the why, the who, the how, and the legacies if we boil it down that way. Ironically, in championing the suffering of the oppressed, folks who lump it all together dehumanize each experience further. This was problematic even when the Marxists were writing about it, and they understood that to some degree. But we're still at it, no doubt aided by the emotional and political load attached to the term.

[–]AngryCenturion 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (12子コメント)

A huge problem is that modern scholars usually focus on the bad side of European colonialism while completely ignoring/ making apologies for Ottoman imperialism, Islamic imperialism, Mongol imperialism, and any type of non- European imperialism

[–]Y3808Aesthetical Marxist 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (11子コメント)

A huge problem is that modern scholars

That's where you lost everyone.

[–]AngryCenturion -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (10子コメント)

How so? What I said is true. Hell, I got bombarded with this shite for two years of grad school. "The European empires were PURE EVIL COLONIALISTS, but hey Ottoman Imperialism was awesome. Look at all these opportunities they gave to these little Christian children they enslaved and forcibly converted to Islam!"

Not to mention they usually downplay Soviet and Communist imperialism as well, but my focus here was specifically on how non-European empires are usually not denigrated for colonialism and imperialism.

[–][削除されました]  (4子コメント)

[removed]

    [–][削除されました]  (3子コメント)

    [removed]

      [–][削除されました]  (2子コメント)

      [removed]

        [–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

        [removed]

          [–]DirishJudyism had one big God named Yahoo[M] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Thank you for your comment to /r/badhistory! Unfortunately, it has been removed for the following reason(s):

          Your comment is in violation of Rule 4. We expect our users to be civil. Insulting other users, using bigoted slurs, and/or otherwise being just plain rude to other users here is not allowed in this subreddit.

          If you feel this was done in error, or would like better clarification or need further assistance, please don't hesitate to message the moderators.

          [–]Y3808Aesthetical Marxist 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (4子コメント)

          So you're saying they're guilty of generalizing?

          A huge problem is that modern scholars

          dotdotdotdotdotdotdotdot

          Maybe it's just me, but as a literature student, which is the last bastion of Marxism on most campuses, I can count on one finger the professors in the entire four years that led students to a judgment. There was never any sort of glorification of one society over another, religion over another, etc. And I had the full gamut of opposing backgrounds among those professors including both India and Pakistan.

          All ideologies were open to ridicule, except from a single religious studies professor who taught ancients/classics.

          [–]AngryCenturion -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

          Not a fallacy if it's true :)

          Also, I notice you keep ignoring the original point. Islamic imperialists and other non-European empires are routinely portrayed in a neutral, or even benign light, while European empires are portrayed as rapacious and evil. Show me a scholar who's openly admiring of European empires (if such scholars exist in significant numbers), and for every one of them, I'll show you five who are exactly as I've described.

          It reminds me of a book we had to read in school by James Gelvin: "the Modern Middle East," or a similar title. On one page, he said that the Ottomans didn't really do anything bad by invading the Balkans, because borders are really just artificial lines on a map, and nations don't really exist, etc. etc. Then, not 10 pages later, he goes on to criticize the British Empire for taking control of Egypt.

          [–]Y3808Aesthetical Marxist 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

          I would say that in most curricula in the humanities in the US it's more accurate to say that non-European empires are absent from higher education unless students seek them out on their own.

          They will get a sprinkling of them in world lit/world history surveys as sophomore undergrads but that's it.

          [–]AngryCenturion -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

          Then you're a very lucky person. All my professors either openly pushed an agenda, or just assumed everyone was of their political mindset (spoiler alert: it wasn't conservative.)

          [–]Y3808Aesthetical Marxist 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

          I suppose literature is more mild than it is given credit for, since we're all bought into the slippery language philosophies of the 20th century. You can't advocate any ideology to people who will argue that nothing means anything ;).

          [–]SnapshillBotPassing Turing Tests since 1956 18 ポイント19 ポイント  (10子コメント)

          Shakespeare didn't write his plays or his poems, but he did write this post.

          Snapshots:

          1. This Post - archive.org, megalodon.jp*, snew.github.io, archive.is

          2. https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedking... - archive.org, megalodon.jp*, snew.github.io, archive.is

          3. 1778 - archive.org), megalodon.jp* "could not auto-archive; click to resubmit it!"), archive.is

          4. 1807 - archive.org, megalodon.jp*, archive.is

          5. 1824 - archive.org, megalodon.jp*, archive.is

          I am a bot. (Info / Contact)

          [–]derlethLiterally Hitler: Adolf's Evil Twin 27 ポイント28 ポイント  (9子コメント)

          Shakespeare didn't write his plays or his poems, but he did write this post.

          Shakespeare was psychotic and had delusions that others wrote his plays, and planted clues to that effect.

          [–]achilles_mShakespeare was black and also did not exist. 29 ポイント30 ポイント  (3子コメント)

          Shakespeare was black and also didn't exist.

          [–]TheyMightBeTrollsLenin wasn't a true Lenninist 23 ポイント24 ポイント  (2子コメント)

          Shakespeare was fighting for states' rights.

          [–]Y3808Aesthetical Marxist 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (1子コメント)

          Bohemian states, but only the ones with coastlines.

          And French states, but only the ones with tigers.

          [–]The740Rommel was more honorable than Grove, less than Earnshaw 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Four terrific flair ideas right in a row

          [–]turkoftheplainsThe Poor Man's Crassus 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (3子コメント)

          And he had epilepsy, bipolar disorder, celiac disease, and whatever else we're diagnosing historical figures with these days.

          [–]derlethLiterally Hitler: Adolf's Evil Twin 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (2子コメント)

          The gays are like the Mormons: Both convert the dead.

          [–]Evan_ThTheologically, Luthar was into reorientation mutation. 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

          So conversion therapy does work?

          [–]StoryWonkerCaesar was assassinated on the Yikes of March 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Yes, but only one way. Once you taste the rainbow, there's no going back.