| Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off 00:49 - Jul 4 with 16056 views | Jack123 |
[Post edited 4 Jul 2020 0:52]
|  |
| |  |
| Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 17:26 - Jul 5 with 1730 views | Kerouac |
| Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 14:01 - Jul 4 by londonlisa2001 |
It’s not remotely comparable.
It’s more akin to someone building a Mosque on the site of Stonehenge or St Paul’s cathedral, |
Hello,
Ever heard of the Al Aqsa Mosque, Jerusalem?
Or the Sultan Ahmed Mosque: ‘Blue Mosque’ of Istanbul?
Or the Hagia Sophia, Istanbul?
Islam was an empire and in every new country the Muslim armies conquered they demolished the old Christian churches and built a Mosque on the same site, nine times out of ten they would use materials from the knocked down church to construct the new Mosque.
What an awful, ignorant, historically illiterate answer you gave. Fair play, surpassed yourself. [Post edited 5 Jul 2020 17:26]
|  |
| |
| Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 18:43 - Jul 5 with 1664 views | Drizzy |
| Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 17:26 - Jul 5 by Kerouac |
Hello,
Ever heard of the Al Aqsa Mosque, Jerusalem?
Or the Sultan Ahmed Mosque: ‘Blue Mosque’ of Istanbul?
Or the Hagia Sophia, Istanbul?
Islam was an empire and in every new country the Muslim armies conquered they demolished the old Christian churches and built a Mosque on the same site, nine times out of ten they would use materials from the knocked down church to construct the new Mosque.
What an awful, ignorant, historically illiterate answer you gave. Fair play, surpassed yourself. [Post edited 5 Jul 2020 17:26]
|
What's your point exactly?
It's okay for Americans to build an offensive monument on a sacred site because the Arabs did it 300 years before?
Awful take and the predictable result of learning Islamic history through old Etonian English students. |  |
| |
| Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 19:47 - Jul 5 with 1611 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 17:26 - Jul 5 by Kerouac |
Hello,
Ever heard of the Al Aqsa Mosque, Jerusalem?
Or the Sultan Ahmed Mosque: ‘Blue Mosque’ of Istanbul?
Or the Hagia Sophia, Istanbul?
Islam was an empire and in every new country the Muslim armies conquered they demolished the old Christian churches and built a Mosque on the same site, nine times out of ten they would use materials from the knocked down church to construct the new Mosque.
What an awful, ignorant, historically illiterate answer you gave. Fair play, surpassed yourself. [Post edited 5 Jul 2020 17:26]
|
Yes I have. And those sites would rightly be regarded as ‘controversial’ which was my point.
Thank you for providing support to the point I was making.
You frothing idiot. |  | | |
| Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 20:01 - Jul 5 with 1596 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 23:08 - Jul 4 by Luther27 |
You really are out of your tree. But in this case regarding Indigenous Americans such as the Sioux , are you advocating the return of Northern America to the original population? Or payment as reparations for the building of a monument on sacred ground? |
“a memorial to the Sioux Nation should stand there (as they are now building) with education about the wrongs that were done to the Sioux Nation at the site and distributed to all visitors (which I believe they are also now doing more than before). “
Yes, in fairness, that sounds exactly the same as ‘the return of Northern America to the original people’.
The US Supreme Court awarded the Sioux Nation about $100m in reparations in 1980 btw. The fund at present stands at over a $1bn. The Sioux Nation haven’t taken the money as they want it to be regarded as back rent for the lands illegally seized (after the settlement) rather than a purchase price and are asking for joint management and a payment of something like $7m per annum to compensate them. Doesn’t sound that radical to me.
Do you think the Nazi stolen artwork etc should be returned to the Jewish families it was stolen from or not? What about if someone broke into your home and stole your stuff. Should they return it or just keep it ? What if you didn’t find who did it until 10 years later! 20 years? At what point does it just become theirs? | | | |
| Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 20:55 - Jul 5 with 1561 views | Dr_Winston |
| Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 17:28 - Jul 4 by londonlisa2001 |
It’s not a valid comparison as that war didn’t end with Germany occupying ‘our’ land or us occupying ‘theirs’.
A better comparison would be the countries ceded to the Soviets as a result of the War, where the struggle to turf them out didn’t cease until they were turfed out. Or if Israel, granted lands in perpetuity in 1948, had seen Jerusalem taken back due to the discovery of natural resources only for the Germans to erect a statue of great German leaders on the site of the Temple Mount. |
WW2 did end with "us occupying 'theirs'" though. |  |
| Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. |
| |
| Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 21:04 - Jul 5 with 1552 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 20:55 - Jul 5 by Dr_Winston |
WW2 did end with "us occupying 'theirs'" though. |
Only on a temporary basis. With the exception of the Soviets which I mentioned.
1949 saw much power ceded back from the other allied powers and it was over by 1955. | | | |
| Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 21:10 - Jul 5 with 1539 views | Kerouac |
| Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 18:43 - Jul 5 by Drizzy |
What's your point exactly?
It's okay for Americans to build an offensive monument on a sacred site because the Arabs did it 300 years before?
Awful take and the predictable result of learning Islamic history through old Etonian English students. |
It is an obvious point, so you'll need it spelling out I suppose.
None of you lefties would be for taking down those Mosques. If a bunch of Jews protested outside the Al Aqsa Mosque or a bunch of Orthodox Christians outside the Blue Mosque, you would no doubt label them extremists...you may deny this but we all know you certainly wouldn't support their cause (Most of the Mosques ever built would be in trouble).
This is because the Left couldn't give a single shite about the principle of one people imposing their culture over another's (see the Soviet Union for evidence as well as every Islamic state in the World), they couldn't give a single shite about one people building on another people's sacred ground.
The only reason why you get behind people complaining about Mount Rushmore, or want to tear down statues of British people involved in the British Empire (I've never heard any of you getting your knickers in a twist about the Islamic empire or the Soviet empire) is because;
1 - You hate America
2 - You hate Britain
Why?
Because these countries have flown the flag for Liberal free trade and have unashamedly promoted Capitalism as a virtuous system around the World.
It is sheer bitterness from the Left because Socialism has been shown to be a failure over and over again.
The World is so much better today, the average global citizen is better off, because of Capitalism and because of the enormous contribution made by the English speaking people's of the World and that really, really, f*cks you off.
History of the Al Aqsa Mosque...
https://emetnews.org/analysis/myth_of_al_aqsa_mosque.php [Post edited 5 Jul 2020 21:23]
| |
| |
| Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 21:15 - Jul 5 with 1529 views | Kerouac |
| Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 19:47 - Jul 5 by londonlisa2001 |
Yes I have. And those sites would rightly be regarded as ‘controversial’ which was my point.
Thank you for providing support to the point I was making.
You frothing idiot. |
Oh really, point us to a left-winger arguing that those sites are controversial and should be altered.
Don't disappear for 2 days or change the goalposts as you normally do.
Just back up your statement with evidence. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 22:38 - Jul 5 with 1478 views | Treforys_Jack |
You lot really need to get back to work or find a hobby. |  | | |
| Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 22:56 - Jul 5 with 1471 views | Drizzy |
| Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 21:10 - Jul 5 by Kerouac |
It is an obvious point, so you'll need it spelling out I suppose.
None of you lefties would be for taking down those Mosques. If a bunch of Jews protested outside the Al Aqsa Mosque or a bunch of Orthodox Christians outside the Blue Mosque, you would no doubt label them extremists...you may deny this but we all know you certainly wouldn't support their cause (Most of the Mosques ever built would be in trouble).
This is because the Left couldn't give a single shite about the principle of one people imposing their culture over another's (see the Soviet Union for evidence as well as every Islamic state in the World), they couldn't give a single shite about one people building on another people's sacred ground.
The only reason why you get behind people complaining about Mount Rushmore, or want to tear down statues of British people involved in the British Empire (I've never heard any of you getting your knickers in a twist about the Islamic empire or the Soviet empire) is because;
1 - You hate America
2 - You hate Britain
Why?
Because these countries have flown the flag for Liberal free trade and have unashamedly promoted Capitalism as a virtuous system around the World.
It is sheer bitterness from the Left because Socialism has been shown to be a failure over and over again.
The World is so much better today, the average global citizen is better off, because of Capitalism and because of the enormous contribution made by the English speaking people's of the World and that really, really, f*cks you off.
History of the Al Aqsa Mosque...
https://emetnews.org/analysis/myth_of_al_aqsa_mosque.php [Post edited 5 Jul 2020 21:23]
|
"Most of the Mosques ever built would be in trouble"
Fair play, Kerouac. You have a knack of shoehorning Islamophobia into nearly every discussion. If you were able to read correctly, I've equated the actions of Americans and Arabs in "building offensive monuments on a sacred site". It's just that Mt. Rushmore is being discussed at the moment because the American President made a tone-deaf display in front of it a few days ago. Not only that, it's about 80 years old. By comparison, the Hagia Sophia was converted about 570 years ago. Funnily enough, it hasn't been a mosque for about 90 years. What a stupid example.
The rest of your post lumbers under the assumption that Islam is a force of evil and that Western liberalism. Not to mention the idea of global free trade was conceived at a time when Britain and the USA were largely uncivilised. It's a skewed view of history that's born from YouTube algorithms.
I do agree that capitalism raised the living standards of the average global citizen but that wasn't through exploitative Western imperialism. Ironically, it was Muslim Empires that facilitated the expansion of capitalism through their development of Arabic numerals and trade routes. Not to mention the Arabs abided by a much more sustainable form of capitalism, with income redistribution (Zakat) and prohibiting immoral loans (Riba). That's not a tacit endorsement of any atrocities committed in the name of Islam, just in case you go there as you usually do. | |
| |
| Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 23:17 - Jul 5 with 1455 views | Glossolalia |
History isn't there to simply cherry-pick injustices that chime with whichever social justice narrative is at the forefront currently. I don't mean to dismiss the issue of racism, not at all, but to look at the past through today's lens is no way going to truly bring us together. To stoke past flames that no one alive is responsible for is causing harm.
Don't people realise most history reads like a horror story? It's there to be learnt from, not selectively eradicated. Educate to the full extent - every grimy detail, lest we forget and become more likely to repeat our mistakes. It's like 1984, honestly. If no one remembers it happened it didn't happen, as all proof has been been destroyed. Scary idea! [Post edited 5 Jul 2020 23:20]
|  | | |
| Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 23:27 - Jul 5 with 1433 views | Kerouac |
| Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 22:56 - Jul 5 by Drizzy |
"Most of the Mosques ever built would be in trouble"
Fair play, Kerouac. You have a knack of shoehorning Islamophobia into nearly every discussion. If you were able to read correctly, I've equated the actions of Americans and Arabs in "building offensive monuments on a sacred site". It's just that Mt. Rushmore is being discussed at the moment because the American President made a tone-deaf display in front of it a few days ago. Not only that, it's about 80 years old. By comparison, the Hagia Sophia was converted about 570 years ago. Funnily enough, it hasn't been a mosque for about 90 years. What a stupid example.
The rest of your post lumbers under the assumption that Islam is a force of evil and that Western liberalism. Not to mention the idea of global free trade was conceived at a time when Britain and the USA were largely uncivilised. It's a skewed view of history that's born from YouTube algorithms.
I do agree that capitalism raised the living standards of the average global citizen but that wasn't through exploitative Western imperialism. Ironically, it was Muslim Empires that facilitated the expansion of capitalism through their development of Arabic numerals and trade routes. Not to mention the Arabs abided by a much more sustainable form of capitalism, with income redistribution (Zakat) and prohibiting immoral loans (Riba). That's not a tacit endorsement of any atrocities committed in the name of Islam, just in case you go there as you usually do. |
F*ck me I've heard it all now.
"Muslim Empires that facilitated the expansion of capitalism"
...said no historian worthy of the name anywhere.
What a load of shite you speak.
The Arabic countries were 3rd World just prior to Europeans discovering oil in vast quantities for them and then setting up the infrastructure to get it out of the ground.
"the Arabs abided by a much more sustainable form of capitalism, with income redistribution (Zakat) and prohibiting immoral loans (Riba). "
...is one of the funniest sentences I have ever read on the internet, you are a f*cking buffoon, get a proper education.
I could give the info to you but it would take days and you wouldn't take a word of it on board anyway.
For anyone interested in the subject, you have a lot of reading ahead of you, start here;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_capitalism
Which will point you in the right direction...clue. It had sweet f*ck all to do with the Arab Muslim empire.
Re: the timeline for offence to be taken.
So how much time has to pass exactly before it becomes unacceptable to be offended anymore and walk me through why you are offended by Mount Rushmore but not the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem. | |
| |
| Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 23:43 - Jul 5 with 1422 views | Brynmill_Jack |
| Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 21:10 - Jul 5 by Kerouac |
It is an obvious point, so you'll need it spelling out I suppose.
None of you lefties would be for taking down those Mosques. If a bunch of Jews protested outside the Al Aqsa Mosque or a bunch of Orthodox Christians outside the Blue Mosque, you would no doubt label them extremists...you may deny this but we all know you certainly wouldn't support their cause (Most of the Mosques ever built would be in trouble).
This is because the Left couldn't give a single shite about the principle of one people imposing their culture over another's (see the Soviet Union for evidence as well as every Islamic state in the World), they couldn't give a single shite about one people building on another people's sacred ground.
The only reason why you get behind people complaining about Mount Rushmore, or want to tear down statues of British people involved in the British Empire (I've never heard any of you getting your knickers in a twist about the Islamic empire or the Soviet empire) is because;
1 - You hate America
2 - You hate Britain
Why?
Because these countries have flown the flag for Liberal free trade and have unashamedly promoted Capitalism as a virtuous system around the World.
It is sheer bitterness from the Left because Socialism has been shown to be a failure over and over again.
The World is so much better today, the average global citizen is better off, because of Capitalism and because of the enormous contribution made by the English speaking people's of the World and that really, really, f*cks you off.
History of the Al Aqsa Mosque...
https://emetnews.org/analysis/myth_of_al_aqsa_mosque.php [Post edited 5 Jul 2020 21:23]
|
The papal inspired fourth crusade (the one Catholicism doesn’t like to talk about) weakened Constantinople fatally and then left it defenceless in the face of Ottoman aggression. The looted the city for religious relics and much of its wealth. |  |
| Each time I go to Bedd - au........................ |
| |
| Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 00:03 - Jul 6 with 1412 views | Drizzy |
| Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 23:27 - Jul 5 by Kerouac |
F*ck me I've heard it all now.
"Muslim Empires that facilitated the expansion of capitalism"
...said no historian worthy of the name anywhere.
What a load of shite you speak.
The Arabic countries were 3rd World just prior to Europeans discovering oil in vast quantities for them and then setting up the infrastructure to get it out of the ground.
"the Arabs abided by a much more sustainable form of capitalism, with income redistribution (Zakat) and prohibiting immoral loans (Riba). "
...is one of the funniest sentences I have ever read on the internet, you are a f*cking buffoon, get a proper education.
I could give the info to you but it would take days and you wouldn't take a word of it on board anyway.
For anyone interested in the subject, you have a lot of reading ahead of you, start here;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_capitalism
Which will point you in the right direction...clue. It had sweet f*ck all to do with the Arab Muslim empire.
Re: the timeline for offence to be taken.
So how much time has to pass exactly before it becomes unacceptable to be offended anymore and walk me through why you are offended by Mount Rushmore but not the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem. |
Seeing as Wikipedia is now your chosen source of information, rather than tinfoil hat blogs, here's a whole article dedicated to Capitalism and Islam.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism_and_Islam
"Many of these early capitalist concepts were adopted and further advanced in medieval Europe from the 13th century onwards.[1] Some have argued that these economic activities laid the foundations for the development of modern capitalism.[7][8]"
You really have no idea of Middle Eastern history do you?
"The Arabic countries were 3rd World just prior to Europeans discovering oil in vast quantities for them and then setting up the infrastructure to get it out of the ground."
This is just a laughably ignorant statement. If you're talking about the 19th century Ottoman Empire, which controlled most of the Arab world, they had sophisticated fiscal and monetary institutions that had lasted centuries. I'll concede that its reach and plunder didn't extend as far as Imperial Britain or France but I doubt the living standards were much worse for the average citizen of Damascus compared with your average Londoner.
European involvement in Middle Eastern oil did wonders for the region and the world didn't it?
I'm not "offended" at Mt. Rushmore or the Al Asqa mosque. I recognise the inflammatory nature of Trump's speech just as I would recognise the inflammatory nature of a Hamas rally on the site of the mosque. Although I didn't need to make a facile comparison between two sacred sites to push my warped agenda. [Post edited 6 Jul 2020 0:07]
| |
| |
| Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 00:43 - Jul 6 with 1384 views | Kerouac |
| Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 00:03 - Jul 6 by Drizzy |
Seeing as Wikipedia is now your chosen source of information, rather than tinfoil hat blogs, here's a whole article dedicated to Capitalism and Islam.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism_and_Islam
"Many of these early capitalist concepts were adopted and further advanced in medieval Europe from the 13th century onwards.[1] Some have argued that these economic activities laid the foundations for the development of modern capitalism.[7][8]"
You really have no idea of Middle Eastern history do you?
"The Arabic countries were 3rd World just prior to Europeans discovering oil in vast quantities for them and then setting up the infrastructure to get it out of the ground."
This is just a laughably ignorant statement. If you're talking about the 19th century Ottoman Empire, which controlled most of the Arab world, they had sophisticated fiscal and monetary institutions that had lasted centuries. I'll concede that its reach and plunder didn't extend as far as Imperial Britain or France but I doubt the living standards were much worse for the average citizen of Damascus compared with your average Londoner.
European involvement in Middle Eastern oil did wonders for the region and the world didn't it?
I'm not "offended" at Mt. Rushmore or the Al Asqa mosque. I recognise the inflammatory nature of Trump's speech just as I would recognise the inflammatory nature of a Hamas rally on the site of the mosque. Although I didn't need to make a facile comparison between two sacred sites to push my warped agenda. [Post edited 6 Jul 2020 0:07]
|
Every society has proto capitalism.
It is the nature of human economic behaviour.
The Arabs traded and had the necessary financial law. They can count plenty of achievements.
Modern Capitalism however refers to the efficient funnelling of wealth into the development of new technology and more efficient production.
It is why the Industrial Revolution happened here and not the Ottoman empire.
Read through this and please try to understand what it means;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_economics
Also, ruminate on this.
You accept that Western Capitalism has raised living standards, life expectancy and general health for human beings...yet you constantly argue in favour of Socialists and Socialism.
You are also quick to promote Islamic 'Capitalism'...
I ask you and anybody reading to think about the contrasting outcomes when you examine;
- The Soviet Union (a union of Socialist states)
- The Islamic World
- The West
Why do you think the West has performed best economically? Do try to explain. [Post edited 6 Jul 2020 0:49]
| |
| |
| Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 07:05 - Jul 6 with 1290 views | Brynmill_Jack |
| Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 00:43 - Jul 6 by Kerouac |
Every society has proto capitalism.
It is the nature of human economic behaviour.
The Arabs traded and had the necessary financial law. They can count plenty of achievements.
Modern Capitalism however refers to the efficient funnelling of wealth into the development of new technology and more efficient production.
It is why the Industrial Revolution happened here and not the Ottoman empire.
Read through this and please try to understand what it means;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_economics
Also, ruminate on this.
You accept that Western Capitalism has raised living standards, life expectancy and general health for human beings...yet you constantly argue in favour of Socialists and Socialism.
You are also quick to promote Islamic 'Capitalism'...
I ask you and anybody reading to think about the contrasting outcomes when you examine;
- The Soviet Union (a union of Socialist states)
- The Islamic World
- The West
Why do you think the West has performed best economically? Do try to explain. [Post edited 6 Jul 2020 0:49]
|
The Soviets used the word socialism to equate to communism but in reality they are very different things. Aneurin Bevan Founded the NHS. Do you think that’s a product of communism? | |
| Each time I go to Bedd - au........................ |
| |
| Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 07:08 - Jul 6 with 1283 views | Brynmill_Jack |
| Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 00:43 - Jul 6 by Kerouac |
Every society has proto capitalism.
It is the nature of human economic behaviour.
The Arabs traded and had the necessary financial law. They can count plenty of achievements.
Modern Capitalism however refers to the efficient funnelling of wealth into the development of new technology and more efficient production.
It is why the Industrial Revolution happened here and not the Ottoman empire.
Read through this and please try to understand what it means;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_economics
Also, ruminate on this.
You accept that Western Capitalism has raised living standards, life expectancy and general health for human beings...yet you constantly argue in favour of Socialists and Socialism.
You are also quick to promote Islamic 'Capitalism'...
I ask you and anybody reading to think about the contrasting outcomes when you examine;
- The Soviet Union (a union of Socialist states)
- The Islamic World
- The West
Why do you think the West has performed best economically? Do try to explain. [Post edited 6 Jul 2020 0:49]
|
Also Christian countries allowed the lending of money with interest so banks grew more and more powerful . Ursury , a practice once forbidden in Christianity and still forbidden in Islam. | |
| Each time I go to Bedd - au........................ |
| |
| Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 08:29 - Jul 6 with 1260 views | Professor |
Remember Highjack asked why it was controversial. The answer does not change. It is built on what a community consider sacred ground. Protests were as much by Sioux as ‘antifa’. Trump made a speech about American history beginning with Columbus. Supporters shouted at the Sioux to ‘ go home’. You have to see the idiocy and irony in that. It’s not even a left:right argument. It just recognises that the monument, which i don’t believe anyone is offended by enough to suggest removal, is built on land promised to the Lakota Sioux in 1868 was forcibly taken away less than a decade later by a government breaking its own treaty.
If ever you want to see the stupidity religion can bring, then a visit to Jerusalem is very enlightening | | | |
| Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 10:25 - Jul 6 with 1231 views | Highjack |
| Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 22:38 - Jul 5 by Treforys_Jack |
You lot really need to get back to work or find a hobby. |
This is our hobby. |  |
| |
| Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 10:28 - Jul 6 with 1229 views | Darran |
| Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 08:29 - Jul 6 by Professor |
Remember Highjack asked why it was controversial. The answer does not change. It is built on what a community consider sacred ground. Protests were as much by Sioux as ‘antifa’. Trump made a speech about American history beginning with Columbus. Supporters shouted at the Sioux to ‘ go home’. You have to see the idiocy and irony in that. It’s not even a left:right argument. It just recognises that the monument, which i don’t believe anyone is offended by enough to suggest removal, is built on land promised to the Lakota Sioux in 1868 was forcibly taken away less than a decade later by a government breaking its own treaty.
If ever you want to see the stupidity religion can bring, then a visit to Jerusalem is very enlightening |
I don’t think they actually meant go home to the country they came from mind.
Just saying. |  |
| |
| Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 11:19 - Jul 6 with 1200 views | Kerouac |
| Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 07:05 - Jul 6 by Brynmill_Jack |
The Soviets used the word socialism to equate to communism but in reality they are very different things. Aneurin Bevan Founded the NHS. Do you think that’s a product of communism? |
They are not "very different things" at all.
Communism is the imagined end state, the Utopia. Socialism is considered a step along the way, the problem is it never gets past Socialism because Socialist economic policy ends up in the ruination of economies.
The Soviet Union was a union of Socialist states, they all practiced Socialism, it was a disaster on an almost unparalleled scale.
The NHS is an example of a Socialist policy being enacted by a government within a Capitalist economy. It is a luxury we have been able to afford because Capitalism was generating enough wealth in this country to foot the bill.
It is a bit like the Scandinavian countries, they are often held up as 'Socialist' because of some government policies, when those countries have (in fact) Capitalist economies. | |
| |
| Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 11:32 - Jul 6 with 1184 views | LeonWasGod |
| Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 14:04 - Jul 4 by Highjack |
People have just lost all leave of their senses. History was brutal. People are brutal. We can’t change that now. It’s done. We can look at it and say “that was horrible, let’s learn from it and be nicer to each other in future” or we can live in perpetual penance where we flagellate each other for the wrongdoings of people who lived centuries ago. |
"We can look at it and say “that was horrible, let’s learn from it and be nicer to each other in future”
That's what people are trying to do. But there are a bunch of other people unwilling to admit things were horrible. Until that's acknowledged, there's no way to learn from past events and move on. |  | | |
| Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 11:37 - Jul 6 with 1177 views | Professor |
| Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 10:28 - Jul 6 by Darran |
I don’t think they actually meant go home to the country they came from mind.
Just saying. |
I think they believed they were Hispanic Darran!
Or maybe not | | | |
| Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 11:41 - Jul 6 with 1173 views | Kerouac |
| Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 08:29 - Jul 6 by Professor |
Remember Highjack asked why it was controversial. The answer does not change. It is built on what a community consider sacred ground. Protests were as much by Sioux as ‘antifa’. Trump made a speech about American history beginning with Columbus. Supporters shouted at the Sioux to ‘ go home’. You have to see the idiocy and irony in that. It’s not even a left:right argument. It just recognises that the monument, which i don’t believe anyone is offended by enough to suggest removal, is built on land promised to the Lakota Sioux in 1868 was forcibly taken away less than a decade later by a government breaking its own treaty.
If ever you want to see the stupidity religion can bring, then a visit to Jerusalem is very enlightening |
It is not religion's stupidity, it is man's...religion is just one manifestation but man's stupidity can be found in lots of different forms.
It is obvious to everyone that people, people who are largely on the left wing of politics, are picking and choosing their history...editing it. They pretend to be outraged by the principle of a thing when in fact they do not apply that principle and get outraged at other things.
This is not history, it is politics.
I read history to deepen my understanding, not to get outraged.
I understand that the Native Americans are descended from nomadic Mongolian tribes. I understand that they fought wars, raped and pillaged and conquered lands as much as any other people on earth.
Largely the tribes that made it to North America before they were cut off by the sea were isolated from the other civilisations of the world for thousands of years.
They fought among each other and got up to all sorts that would be morally frowned upon today before the Europeans turned up with superior weapons.
The largely British people who conquered them in the first 300 years of what we now call the United states of America had themselves committed morally questionable acts and had morally questionable things done to them in their own history.
History of Britain, a dumbed down simplified timeline...
Celts came first,
then the Romans,
then the Anglo-Saxons,
then the Vikings,
then the Normans,
there then followed many centuries of fighting among ourselves before things on these isles stabilised,
there then followed constant attacks from our neighbours (see France etc.) and constant attacks by us on them.
Everyone has a sob story if they want to play the victim, but playing the victim doesn't get anybody anywhere.
I do not expect the Islamic world to apologise to the Christian world anytime soon for the desecration of sacred sites, the conquering of lands and peoples, the religious subjugation and slaughter of people.
What people from that part of the World did in their past is entirely in keeping with what all humans across the world did to each other.
If people want to play politics with it centuries later just look to Israel and N. Ireland for where that leads to.
You use history to understand the world, it's peoples, and help plot a course to a better future by hopefully not making as many mistakes as people did in the past...that is, you do if you have any sense. [Post edited 6 Jul 2020 12:12]
| |
| |
| Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 12:28 - Jul 6 with 1137 views | Professor |
| Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 11:41 - Jul 6 by Kerouac |
It is not religion's stupidity, it is man's...religion is just one manifestation but man's stupidity can be found in lots of different forms.
It is obvious to everyone that people, people who are largely on the left wing of politics, are picking and choosing their history...editing it. They pretend to be outraged by the principle of a thing when in fact they do not apply that principle and get outraged at other things.
This is not history, it is politics.
I read history to deepen my understanding, not to get outraged.
I understand that the Native Americans are descended from nomadic Mongolian tribes. I understand that they fought wars, raped and pillaged and conquered lands as much as any other people on earth.
Largely the tribes that made it to North America before they were cut off by the sea were isolated from the other civilisations of the world for thousands of years.
They fought among each other and got up to all sorts that would be morally frowned upon today before the Europeans turned up with superior weapons.
The largely British people who conquered them in the first 300 years of what we now call the United states of America had themselves committed morally questionable acts and had morally questionable things done to them in their own history.
History of Britain, a dumbed down simplified timeline...
Celts came first,
then the Romans,
then the Anglo-Saxons,
then the Vikings,
then the Normans,
there then followed many centuries of fighting among ourselves before things on these isles stabilised,
there then followed constant attacks from our neighbours (see France etc.) and constant attacks by us on them.
Everyone has a sob story if they want to play the victim, but playing the victim doesn't get anybody anywhere.
I do not expect the Islamic world to apologise to the Christian world anytime soon for the desecration of sacred sites, the conquering of lands and peoples, the religious subjugation and slaughter of people.
What people from that part of the World did in their past is entirely in keeping with what all humans across the world did to each other.
If people want to play politics with it centuries later just look to Israel and N. Ireland for where that leads to.
You use history to understand the world, it's peoples, and help plot a course to a better future by hopefully not making as many mistakes as people did in the past...that is, you do if you have any sense. [Post edited 6 Jul 2020 12:12]
|
Modern analysis suggests a Celtic Invasion is a myth, that there was a mix of people based mainly on trading who formed the Brythonic people prior to the Romans, and the majority during and after. Change is what happens-you are right. But the Mount Rushmore event was very inflammatory given the belief of the Lakota Sioux and that was subsequently said by Trump at the event.
I have a view on that the Sioux were badly deceived by the US in 1876-i think most people agree to that. The US reneged on the Fort Laramie agreement. I don't think that is a left wing view, merely a humanist one.
As for socialism-that's a very narrow definition. I would suggest the examples of Scandinavia, Netherlands and Germany are broadly socialist as they are based on a civil and relatively (not completely) egalitarian approach. They are more compressed in terms of wealth. The nature of US and UK capitalism is increasingly not to contribute to society, but to accumulate wealth, individualism rather than society.
It is also naive not to assume there are not wealth differences in these countries (there are) but they are in my experience politer, kinder, more progressive and above all fairer societies. I am certainly not anti-American. I really like the country, but can see past the veneers of the surface to the huge problems within. I am not against capitalism. Ultimately a wealthier society is better off. I am very much against exceptionalism and the incredibly nepotistic country we are becoming. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
