So what happens then when a particular tribe contracts a disease by accident from contact from Europeans and the strain depletes the population to below replacement level?
Well because I’m English and I don’t really believe what you’re saying. So there’s that.
Yeah, because there was something called the British agricultural revolution which happened at the same time.
In which the poor were deprived of land, gleaning, and the right to collect scrap wood from forests, milk and pork disappeared from their diet, and poor-houses tried to maintain a diet of 300 calories a day.
Please sir, may I have some more?
The 17 and 18 hundreds were a tough time to be poor in England.
That’s not a moral judgement, it’s an assessment of the tone of your threads. They’re not anti-Imperialist, that’s for damn sure. They’re defenses of Imperialism.
So your answer to your own OP is “Yes, it was theft”, then? Because that’s what rapine literally means.
How is that not “based on theft”? You’re arguing as though the Spanish and English empires were completely unrelated phenomena.
“Some” is a subset of “all”. If you allege something about all, it being untrue for some means it’s untrue for all. Like America not being depopulated.
“British Imperialism was great for India”, “America isn’t built on stolen land” and over all, “Imperialism isn’t always a bad thing”
Now look who’s “trying to ascribe my intentions to fit your position” :rolleyes:
Firstly, I’m not “upset”, was it my use of the technical term bullshitthat made you think that?
Secondly, I’ve been characterising your threads and posts, not your character or moral motivations. That’s not “personal attacks”.
Unless you do, in fact, know Imperialism is always a bad thing, so think “You’re in favour of Imperialism” *is *a personal insult. Because it would be bloody stupid of me to insult you with something you don’t even consider an insult.
And* even if I had* personally insulted you, “tu quoque” is still bad debating and no justification for making fallacious ad hominem arguments like “You’re too close to this argument, it’s making you upset”. Because of course I can’t be both South African and a student of history.
-
That didn’t happen. You should make it clear when you’re talking history and when you’re talking hypotheticals.
-
Even if it had happened, it wouldn’t have changed anything about the topic of this thread. Remember? We’re talking about empires and theft.
It doesn’t matter if you take land that has a million inhabitants or land that has a thousand inhabitants. Either way you’re taking something that belongs to somebody else. And when you take something that belongs to somebody else, it’s theft.
Which is a judgement of my moral stance on imperialism
That’s not the question I’m asking though if you bothered to check.
Because not all empire was based on theft? That’s the point.
Some as a subset isn’t a substitute for all
I didn’t know much about American colonialism and the justifications of land ownership, so I started a debate to see where it would go, same with the Indias wealth one, same with the US empire one. All those threads were started after I had watched academics pitch their talking points.
Ah so you are trying to do that. Got it.
Could have fooled me, you’ve been quite antagonistic all the way through this thread.
Yes it is. Yes you have.
But I do consider it an insult, that’s why I said you were making a moral judgement.
But who’s said I’m debating with you? You gave that position up a while back. All you’re ‘contributing’ Now is trying to make as much noise as possible because you don’t like the topic being discussed, here’s a tip, if you don’t like it, don’t read it. Everybody’s happy.
No, it isn’t. I would still say your threads were “Rah, rah, Imperialism” even if I were in favour of Imperialism. Observing that you’re expending a lot of effort defending it is not a moral judgement.
“how is it theft if the empire in question was the government body and was responsible for the area it controlled?”
is answered by - “…because of all the rapine.”
Just repeating it doesn’t make it true.
It is if being untrue for the part means the whole is also untrue.
As it is in this case.
…vigourously defending only the pro-Imperialist side in each thread.
Yeah, that sounds like a fact-finding thread, alright.
No, it doesn’t mean I did it just because you clearly and overtly do it . Case in point:
Oh, please, point out the “antagonism” in posts 26, 27, 28, 31, 38, 44 or 46.
Disagreeing with you is not the same as being “antagonistic”
No it isn’t, and no I haven’t. Or you could cite more than the phrase “Rah, rah, Imperialism”, which as I’ve said was a characterization of your repeated thread subject matter, not a moral judgement.
So you admit Imperialism is bad? Well, that was easy…
I don’t know, must be something about the way you , ya know, keep replying to my posts…
It is a moral judgement though that you made, that’s the whole point.
And that’s all you had to say, you didn’t need to bring up my other threads to attack me personally.
Nope but Barbados is a true example.
It’s called playing devils advocate. Nobody’s asking you to participate if you’re that butthurt over it.
It’s still an antagonism, you came in this thread all angry and determined to point out how much of a ‘rah rah imperialist’ I am due to your own personal history of living in South Africa and your own history of experience. That isn’t my fault or my problem.
You are capable of doing both. Those are examples of you doing so.
It’s a moral judgement because you’ve ascertained through your own determination that I must be a imperialist because I have started numerous threads exploring the topic.
Maybe if you weren’t so antagonistic you’d have realised that sooner.
I’m not debating with you, I’m just clarifying my position.
a) No, it’s just an observation. I may have made private moral judgements, but I have not articulated them in this thread (at least about you, rather than Kipling, O’Sullivan etc.). That’s entirely on you.
b) it’s irrelevant to any actual arguments I’ve made in this thread, of which I’ve made plenty.
It’s not a personal attack to point out that you’ve already had this very thread topic debated before (and didn’t come out ahead there, either).
A true example of how imperialism is literally theft? Yes, it is that.
No, it’s only devil’s advocate if you say that’s what you’re doing very clearly right at the start.
Otherwise it’s just covering your butt.
The harder you try and make the argumentum ad passiones fallacy happen, the less and less it will.
Yep. That’s why I waited 2 pages and 10 posts in to spring my antagonistic trap.
Muhahaha!!!
:rolleyes:
Where have I cited South Africa or my personal experience in any response to you, other than to note being South African doesn’t negate e.g. my geography and history university courses.? You’re the one who keeps bringing it up.
As though somehow having lived experience of the effects of Imperialism in a colonized country gives me less standing to talk about it. Which is of course laughable.
But by all means, continue pushing your “angry Brown man” narrative. It’s so fresh.
Failure to actually cite any “antagonistic” quotes of mine from those posts duly noted.
No, it’s an observation that you start various threads on the subject “exploring” the topic through the exclusive medium of very vigorous defense.
It was hard to tell, what with all the defending you were doing…
I hate to break it to you, but … that’s debate, mate.
Having said that, it’s clear it’s just going to be a alternating parade of ad hominem attacks and bare assertions that “Obvious Theft isn’t theft” from here on out, so I’m going to leave you to it, then. Have fun advocating those devils…
You’ve articulated them, doesn’t take a genius to realise that, no matter how much you deflect it.
No it wasn’t, you did it to detract from the thread because you didn’t like the subject matter being discussed.
When the island had nobody on it when the English took it over? Your logic strikes again.
Or its just devils advocate.
That’s contingent on me having a position on the subject matter. Which I don’t and which you assumed I did.
Who said your antagonisms followed a pattern of rationality?
Because I know your family had problems with their land being stolen and I remember you talking about it in another thread. I’m talking about the concept of all Empire being based on theft and obviously it would hit a raw nerve. Doesn’t take much to make that leap.
Where have I implied or stated this, you’re annoying me because you’re coming at me as if I’m justifying theft.
It’s more an ‘angry Mr Dibble’ narrative.
I already did, Rah rah imperialism and then linking three different threads about my previous questions on the nature of imperialism land (Including one thread from ten years ago) etc to completely derail and break down the discussion before it had really got going.
It’s called Great Debates, how is anyone supposed to change or see a differing opinion if they’re derailed the minute someone poses a question like you’re doing in my thread?
You mean the preconcieved notions you had of me and then reinforced them by defecating all over my thread? You’re doing a great job.
You’re not debating anything, you’re just here to spoil the thread, make ad hominem attacks “mate”
Took you long enough.
So how about then if a European army defeated the native army because they were at war? Is it theft then?
…New Zealand Maori here: and yes, Little Nemo can be sure about that.
Yes, it is theft.
How many times are you going to ask this same question? Are you expecting us to give you a different answer at some point?
If you take something that belongs to somebody else, is it theft?
Yes.
How about if you take something that belongs to somebody else and they took it from somebody else first, is it theft?
Yes.
What if you take something that belongs to somebody else and they were sick, is it theft?
Yes.
How about if you take something that belongs to somebody else and some other people died that week, is it theft?
Yes.
What if you take something that belongs to somebody else and you shot them first, is it theft?
Yes.
What if you take something that belongs to somebody else and it’s a Tuesday, is it theft?
Yes.
What if you take something that belongs to somebody else and it’s a Thursday, is it theft?
Yes.
What if you take something that belongs to somebody else and it’s a Thursday and you had pizza for lunch, is it theft?
Yes.
What if you take something that belongs to somebody else and it’s a Thursday and you had pizza for lunch and you own a dog named Spot, is it theft?
Yes.
Why are you acting so immature to a simple question? It was the same question for different scenarios I wanted to explore the nuance.
How about the Maori Land Court which was established in 1865?
…what about it?
It sounds like you are trying to argue that through some “right of conquest”, it’s not technically “theft” because the conquering empire becomes the de facto law of the land for the nation in conquered.
Of course it’s still “theft”. Or at the very least it is “imperialism” which is essentially the same thing. Most of the colonies of the British Empire didn’t ask to be part of the Empire. They were either islands or nations conquered by the British or newly formed settlements that displaced the indigenous population.
Ryan Liam,
How is it not theft?
The Pope divided the world between Spain and Portugal. Did he own it?
The English and Spanish kings granted lands in the new world. Did they have title to them? By what authority did they grant title?
Then how do you explain polities such as Holy Roman Empire?
I didn’t say it wasn’t, and the treaty of Tordsellias was more to do with keeping the peace between two Catholic powers than anything really with the New World.
Ryan, do you intend to keep arguing through non sequiturs?