well, hell do you realize how much damage bobbed hair did to Doris Day and Rock Hudson alone??? Iran’s gotta pull some mighty big stuff iffin they want to get into the big leagues like bobbed hair!
Well, I suppose you could claim that Red was simply supporting Spanish imperialism with some race-based insults to piss of XT, while not actually believing that Spanish imperialism was a good thing.
But then, that’d be the textbook definition of trolling even by this board’s standards.
You’re right though, I had assumed he was serious and I overlooked the possibility that he was trolling.
I’ll see if I can find more. For what it’s worth, I’ve never subscribed to the idea that a joke of that sort can’t be both a joke and have a core of an actual position.
If, for instance, someone said in an argument with a black person “Yeah, slavery was good. Civilized you spear chucking voodoo motherfuckers”, it wouldn’t be beyond the pale to assume that they were being an asshole, endorsing slavery and posting a gratuitous insult at the same time. I see it being no different from essentially saying “Yeah, Spanish imperialism was good. Civilized you heart-ripping motherfuckers.”
That was the easiest one that I had access to as I knew where the cite was. There are a few more that I’ve seen over the years between XT and red, let me do some digging…
Okay, here’s another that I can offer up with a minute or two of searching.
I’d wager, I’ve found one of the occurrences XT was referring to. Here XT takes issue with Red’s handwaving support of the history of Spanish imperialist atrocities.
In response,
here Red, via emphasis, indicated his support for the claim that “The Spanish accepted the Indians into their society–however rudely–and sought to provide a philosophical and moral foundation for their actions in the New World.” That while whitewashing the brutality of the Spanish colonialist period and claiming that they’d acted with ‘moderation’.
In other words, that they provided a ‘civilized’ and/or ‘civilizing’ dynamic.
That philosophical and moral foundation, of course, included forced conversions to Christianity and imposed slavery upon populations that were forcibly converted, in order for them to “pay for the debt” of being given Christianity.
Nope, seems you can’t.
Because it’s a lie that claims that Jews control the United States, it’s a slur, a slander, and based on race. That makes it racist.
“Blacks are criminals”
“Mexicans are lazy.”
“Jews control the United States.”
I’d take time to explain how we didn’t provide any significant support to Israel until it proved to be strong a Cold War ally, or how ‘voting preference’ means that the insigificant percentage of Jewish voters wouldn’t actually make a dent… but then I’d be trying to explain facts to some asshole who belongs over at Stormfront talking about how Jews control the United States government.
Thanks for playing.
P.S. I might point out spoke that (go figure) you’re lying through your teeth. And unless I’m mistaken, you have a habit of lying habitually in any GD thread on Israel and when I routinely point out those lies, you whine like a little bitch.
No, you silly little liar, someone making the false-to-facts claim that AIPAC sets out national policy is simply wrong and not necessarily lying. If, however, they maintain such claims once the facts have been shown to them? Yeah, they’re either shit-stupid, lying, or trolling.
And no, you silly little liar, I’ve never claimed that Iran is a threat to civilization, let alone the biggest one. I have taken issue, time and again, with liars who invent their own facts and engage in games of make-believe partisan whoring, when Iran is the subject. Getting the Usual Suspects not to lie their heads off in a GD thread where the word “Iran” comes up is a challenge, as y’all seem to really like lying.
I’d be happy to provide numerous cites where you lie through your rotten little teeth in GD threads.
Fair’s fair, after all.
I must decline your offer of hospitality since I’m only passing through with a drive-by post. Thanks for being a credit to your fellow townsfolk, though.
You could take all the time you want to explain those things, but you’d be making it up.
The United States of America was the first country to recognise the state of Israel. In 1948. That was, shockingly enough, prior to the Cold War.
“But,” I hear you cry, “RNATB, we did that in keeping with our proud tradition of defending democracy, even at the expense of our own foreign policy interest!”
That must be why we recognise democratic Taiwan, and not mainland China. Oh, wait. Did I miss something there? That doesn’t seem quite right, somehow.
Do you have some cites because I read those cites in a different way. The comments that you are attributing to him are from a cite he has offered.
My understanding of his argument is that the Spanish weren’t any more brutal than any of the other colonizing powers such as the French, British, and maybe Portuguese. That might be an interesting thread topic to discuss. FWIW, I don’t think that the Spanish were any more brutal than the other colonial powers. They came for the same reason that the rest of the powers did, for profit. I don’t know about you but I don’t see a whole lot of Native Americans where I live.
:: Reads Finn’s posts above ::
Ooook…
:: Slowly backs up towards the door ::
Aren’t you, like, black, or something? Yeah, that’s right. Get out! Not welcome!
Am I doing it right?
Possibly. But that type of over-the-top comment taken in the context of two people hurling insults at each other isn’t enough, by itself, to merit a charge of being an apologist for imperialism.
Context matters. Those two have a history of ribbing each other (sometimes jokingly and sometimes not so jokingly) about the similarities and differences between Mexicans and Spaniards.
Nah, you’re distorting what he said. The only thing I see about that exchange is that **XT **is upset that **Red **doesn’t view the Spanish conquest with as much disgust as he, XT, does. And **Red **is correct in that the English were more brutal in N. America than the Spanish were in the South. The English/American view was pretty much to drive off and/or kill the natives. The Spanish were generally trying to convert them to Christianity. Yes, they often did so brutally, but they weren’t the worst of the worst, which is what those guys were arguing about in that thread.
I mean, look at the first post he made in that thread:
He’s defending, correctly, the fact that the English/Americans treated Indians worse than the Spanish. Which I believe is true. That is not to say that the Spanish treated Indians well, and it’s clear that **Red **doesn’t think they did.
Well, you got me. I never really believed bobbed hair was such a threat.
Not in my experience.
Regards,
Shodan
[nitpick]Actually, I think most historians would argue that the Cold War was well underway by 1948. Some would even say it dates back to the establishment of the original Bolshevik Republic of 1917.[/nitpick]
I also think that all the arguments over whose colonial record is the worst are missing a big point. The Spanish may appear more benevolent than the English, but then they had a dense, settled population they could “improve”, whereas the English could simply move aside the relatively few “savages” who threatened their farms and villages.
Though obviously separated by a few centuries, it is interesting to note that the same English who practiced local exterminations in sparsely settled North America ruled India with an, at times brutal, but never genocidal hand. From an imperialist’s standpoint, once a subject population reaches a certain threshold, it’s practical to keep them around.
For some reason, I find this post hilarious but I can’t put my finger on why.
I can’t argue with that - but I think we can all agree that Israel wasn’t much of a “staunch Cold War ally” for quite a while after 1948, right?
If anything, the English (and Portuguese, to a lesser extent) “conquest” of India was notable for a lack of brutality. Things were pretty unpleasant leading up to independence, of course, but it was pretty tame in comparison to most of the European colonial adventures.
No argument from me on that. Hard to help a friend when you’re drowning yourself.
That’s what population density can do for you. The Aztecs and their brethren would have had a much better bargaining position without smallpox on their plate.
Good call on deleting that “cheap shot” of yours. I really mean that. Because if you hadn’t, people may have been confused why you were telling me to leave town by sundown.
Local what? Give me a fucking break. Not every group of people that loses a war is the target of deliberate genocide. Try to restrain yourself from the Holocaust button, tia.
You’re classy
Not every mention of the word “extermination” implies motive. Sometimes it is just the effect that matters.
Well, I’ve been called worse.
But point taken. Sorry I called out your deleted remark, Shodan. I should have been stopped myself, I know, but the smartass in me is not easily held back when the door is left wide open, flappin in the wind.