What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Because I'm not 'woke'

Uncensored2008

Libertarian Radical
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
95,864
Reaction score
26,247
Points
2,180
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
I have, I read a very thorough biography on him.

Did I demonize Columbus?

Yes, that is the objective of the thread, to sully the heroes of the West.

Where did I demonize Columbus? I said he should be thoroughly taught, but that he didn't do anything worth celebrating. I said nothing about his quality as a person, nor anything about the monument of his achievement.

That's utterly ignorant. Columbus completely altered the world, for the better. The cave men who had conquered America prior to the arrival of the Europeans certainly added little to the world.

I'll need some sources on this

Read some history - actual history.


Smallpox particularly, was confined to North Amerca.

They pretty thoroughly taught that, actually. There was a huge focus on Arab slavery in multiple classes. Why do you think they don't teach that?

Because you stated that Columbus caused African slavery.

Are you agreeing that is a false claim?

Alright, so I'm indoctrinated. I'm a sheep. I also happen to be open to what others perceive as the truth. Now instead of spending a whole post telling me how indoctrinated I am by the evil child-eating socialists, why not spend a post using facts and reasoning to counter what I'm saying? I mean, I said I'm open to changing my mind, so I don't see why that wouldn't be productive.

Did I say anything about what drove the Enlightenment? How is what I said false, or a perversion of history?

You went into Christian bashing, a typical Marxist response.

I described what the Enlightenment was, the ideals which were a mainstay of the movement.
Yes, Christian ideals.

Yes, the Protestant reformation was the beginning of the general Enlightenment. But movements don't come out of nowhere. Movements are driven by sentiments that precede those movements. Much of Europe was tired of established religion, the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, and that's why they were so open to the rejection of this institution, and the establishment of new ones.

Perhaps, but as I already noted, it was the dissatisfaction with the feudal/collectivist structure that drove the enlightenment.

Are you admitting that the enlightenment was a good thing and places European culture above other cultures of the time?
What followed was an anarchy of ideals, as people scrambled to make sense of everything as they gradually understood this sentiment, and put it into words. Out of this birthed a million Protestant sects (exaggeration, yes, don't murder me), and out of Protestantism birthed the Enlightenment. But the Enlightenment followed that trend of rejection and took it further. For some philosophers, it included a rejection of religion that layed the foundation for much of our modern philosophy. I didn't say that was the main element of the Enlightenment, however, the main elements were as follows: individualism and the rejection of traditional Christian theology.

The rejection of religion was a result of the Enlightenment. Don't confuse cause and effect. The Enlightenment was a result of Protestantism and more importantly Capitalism. Marxism/Socialism is a return to the dark ages of collectivist enslavement. What Marxists represent is the "Disenlightenment."

I don't profess anything. I never did. I made a statement, and I justified that statement. I did so respectfully and open-mindedly. I expressed my openness to changing my mind (which I have done time and time again). There is nothing more you can ask for.

Of course you do. You began this thread in professing the Marxist view that Columbus should not be celebrated.
 

yumegari

Active Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2021
Messages
105
Reaction score
60
Points
33
Location
United States
Yes, that is the objective of the thread, to sully the heroes of the West.
This thread was started celebrating Columbus. Also, I never said anything about any other "heroes" of the West, and I don't intend to. I have respect for a great number of them. Why would I sully people that I have respect for?
That's utterly ignorant. Columbus completely altered the world, for the better. The cave men who had conquered America prior to the arrival of the Europeans certainly added little to the world.
Did he? How so? What did the New World offer that the Old World hasn't had, or would've never had?
Read some history - actual history.
Alright, how do I reliably find this "actual" history?

Smallpox particularly, was confined to North Amerca.
I'm sorry, where does it say in this article that it was confined to "northeast America" as you said? I read through it and I didn't see that, however I might not have read thoroughly enough.

If you'd like, I can quote some sources suggesting smallpox existed in central America as well, but I don't know what sources you do and don't respect.
Because you stated that Columbus caused African slavery.

Are you agreeing that is a false claim?
No, I am not agreeing that is a false claim. I said that Columbus's discovery of the New World led to the triangular trade, which led to the mass enslavement of Africans by Europeans and their transportation to the Americas. I didn't say that was the first time Africans were ever enslaved. Everyone has been enslaving everyone else since the beginning of time. That doesn't mean that European chattel slavery wasn't horrific.
You went into Christian bashing, a typical Marxist response.

Yes, Christian ideals.
How did I bash Christianity? I don't see it.
Are you admitting that the enlightenment was a good thing and places European culture above other cultures of the time?
I admitted that a number of posts back, before I believe you even entered this thread. I said the ideals of the Enlightenment were desirable, and that European culture is "superior," given the goals I happen to support.
Of course you do. You began this thread in professing the Marxist view that Columbus should not be celebrated.
Well if I happen to agree with Marxists on this one thing, my bad. I'd wager a guess that you happen to agree with Marx's support of gun rights. Really, agreement on one topic, or even a few topics, doesn't make one a Marxist, especially since I haven't expressed any belief in most of these ideals you're claiming to be Marxist.
 

Unkotare

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
107,086
Reaction score
15,553
Points
2,180
... my argument is that the consequences of Columbus's actions have been negative, and they aren't worth being celebrated. ...
One of the eventual consequences is the United States of America. That is very much worth celebrating.
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
92,480
Reaction score
31,888
Points
2,250
I don't particularly care if you celebrate Columbus day, and I don't think most "liberals" would, but he really didn't do a damn thing worth celebrating.


He discovered America....an no, it doesn't count that the indians were here first....Europe didn't know it existed...so he did, in fact, discover it.
 
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
8,554
Reaction score
831
Points
155
Location
All in your mind
Nature and how we structure society should ideally have little to do with each other. The fact that we have even managed to achieve modern society is a sign that society doesn't have to reflect nature in the rawest sense. If the goal of each individual is to achieve happiness, which I would argue is the natural goal of all beings, then that should also be the goal of society. And to maximize the happiness of as many people as possible, you must go against, or at the very least manipulate, the methodology Mother Nature uses to select the "fittest."



Also destiny is a load of BS

The student lives like a child? How so? The student is The students are constantly challenged to push their intellectual boundaries, exit their comfort zone.

Professors as infallible father-figures? Far from it. Professors encourage you to challenge them. I've never had a professor that any professors who didn't borderline force me to challenge their ideas, I never had a professor that wasn't happy to see me think for myself, to critically oppose what was taught.
Academentia Produces Diploma Dumbos

Happiness is achieved by motivating the fittest to produce. Then they will produce the most, which will benefit all. Because athletes are more aware of that, your egalitarian ideology is not popular in sports. Players don't believe it is unfair that the fittest get to play more and are paid the most. Your theory on Nature unfairly determining the fittest is like claiming that the star athletes aren't really the fittest; they only conform best to the unfair rules of the game.

I mention this because most college graduates had no more right to even be in college than they had to be on the college football team. In that situation, your theory is right; the admission rules determining this are based on who can spend years working without pay That does not attract the fittest. Or if some are fooled by it, they lose their fitness. Swallow your pride and you will choke your talent. Any country that decides to pay students for their grades will lead this century's world economy.

Sacrifice has no merit; it is merely brown-nosing. From that foundational failure, rewarding the unfit through Affirmative Action is the natural progression to failing even more.

The rest of the students don't belong there either, since the Educationist dictators have purposely designed the university for richkids living off an allowance. Because those spoiled and sheltered mediocrities don't need to be paid a salary for schoolwork, it is assumed that no one else needs one. So the university is an obsolete aristocratic institution and needs to be replaced with highly paid professional training. Also, only toxic thought processes come out of academia, which is the inevitable outcome of its fundamental error of being work without pay. Academic thought is like astrology, complex procedures and rationalizations following from a fundamental delusion.
 
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
8,554
Reaction score
831
Points
155
Location
All in your mind
There is no such thing as voluntary socialism as soon some people dont want to work, then others, then the government comes in with a point of a gun and you have communism. Always ends that way as history has always shown us..
Power Doesn't Corrupt; Corrupt People Seek Absolute Power

Lenin actually started his dictatorship that way. His initial plan was to demand that everybody work for free and share what they produced. That was intentional on his part. He wanted to show that people are "selfish" and wouldn't voluntarily share, which gave him an excuse to create a dictatorship of his clique that would force the Russians to become New Communist Humanity or else.
 

Billyboom

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2016
Messages
9,470
Reaction score
4,032
Points
265
OP
WillHaftawaite

WillHaftawaite

Diamond Member
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
69,774
Reaction score
28,221
Points
2,290

Uncensored2008

Libertarian Radical
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
95,864
Reaction score
26,247
Points
2,180
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
This thread was started celebrating Columbus. Also, I never said anything about any other "heroes" of the West, and I don't intend to. I have respect for a great number of them. Why would I sully people that I have respect for?

I'll bet you're a huge fan of Thomas Jefferson, right?

Did he? How so? What did the New World offer that the Old World hasn't had, or would've never had?

You claim to be a student of history, yet you are apparently ignorant of the "Market Revolution" and the rise of the Middle Class. This was a unique development of the New World, specifically America which allowed for the first time in history the specialization of agriculture and production creating for the first time an abundance of food and goods, eradicating hunger and creating an educated populace.

This is but one example of the vast improvement to the human condition as a whole the New World, and liberty based free market Capitalism provides.

Alright, how do I reliably find this "actual" history?

You could try "Google."

Libraries work as well.

I'm sorry, where does it say in this article that it was confined to "northeast America" as you said? I read through it and I didn't see that, however I might not have read thoroughly enough.

If you'd like, I can quote some sources suggesting smallpox existed in central America as well, but I don't know what sources you do and don't respect.

Please do.


No, I am not agreeing that is a false claim. I said that Columbus's discovery of the New World led to the triangular trade, which led to the mass enslavement of Africans by Europeans and their transportation to the Americas. I didn't say that was the first time Africans were ever enslaved. Everyone has been enslaving everyone else since the beginning of time. That doesn't mean that European chattel slavery wasn't horrific.

Obviously transport of African slaves to the Americas began after America was discovered. A simple expansion of what had been occurring for centuries or millennia.

How did I bash Christianity? I don't see it.

I admitted that a number of posts back, before I believe you even entered this thread. I said the ideals of the Enlightenment were desirable, and that European culture is "superior," given the goals I happen to support.

It certainly doesn't come off that way.

Well if I happen to agree with Marxists on this one thing, my bad. I'd wager a guess that you happen to agree with Marx's support of gun rights. Really, agreement on one topic, or even a few topics, doesn't make one a Marxist, especially since I haven't expressed any belief in most of these ideals you're claiming to be Marxist.
Gun rights? :lmao:

{
“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.”
Karl Marx, March, 1850
Sounds nice, until you realize that in the Marxist lexicon, not everyone will be considered a worker. If you own a small business, you’re a private trader, so you’re a class enemy. If the Marxist wants arms and ammunition for the workers, it’s only so they can overthrow the government, once the Marxist reach power, they remove guns and ammo from everyone but their cops and military. Remember, Marxism is all about collective needs, when they don’t need you to have a gun, they will take it away.

“the Marxist position upholds gun ownership as a class right. Similarly, class rights directly confront the liberal belief that the state should be the predominant or sole trustee of firearms.

By classifying the right to bear arms as a class right, rather than a ‘human’, ‘constitutional’, or ‘natural’ right, the Marxist position upholds the social character of gun ownership. The Second Amendment enshrines the right to bear arms as an individual right set in place to protect individuals and their property from threats. Under capitalism, this translates into principally a ruling class and petty-bourgeois right since these are the classes that own “property,” i.e. capital, businesses, the means of production.”
Source: Three Positions on Gun Control}

Marxism holds that there are NO rights, only privilege imbued by collective membership in a particular group.
 

odanny

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
May 7, 2017
Messages
4,859
Reaction score
3,891
Points
1,940
Location
P-town

Meathead

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2012
Messages
37,187
Reaction score
11,356
Points
1,400
Location
Prague, Czech Republic
Oh? Why do I need a safe space? Aren't safe spaces void of alternative opinions? I'm actively seeking out alternative opinions right now, calmly and respectfully. Where do you get this?
It's not my first rodeo sweetie.
 

yumegari

Active Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2021
Messages
105
Reaction score
60
Points
33
Location
United States
One of the eventual consequences is the United States of America. That is very much worth celebrating.
There were a lot of things that led to the United States, really, and many of them far more directly. The United States was a very small consequence of the discovery of the New World, compared to all the other events that came about as a result. We celebrate US independence, as well as a plethora of more direct events within the context of US history.
He discovered America....an no, it doesn't count that the indians were here first....Europe didn't know it existed...so he did, in fact, discover it.
Yeah. And?
Academentia Produces Diploma Dumbos

Happiness is achieved by motivating the fittest to produce. Then they will produce the most, which will benefit all. Because athletes are more aware of that, your egalitarian ideology is not popular in sports. Players don't believe it is unfair that the fittest get to play more and are paid the most. Your theory on Nature unfairly determining the fittest is like claiming that the star athletes aren't really the fittest; they only conform best to the unfair rules of the game.
I don't believe an analogy between sports and real life is fair. Sports is inherently tribalistic, inherently war-like, inherently primitive. It is there to satisfy human desire to be primitive in the confines of a non-primitive society.
I mention this because most college graduates had no more right to even be in college than they had to be on the college football team. In that situation, your theory is right; the admission rules determining this are based on who can spend years working without pay That does not attract the fittest. Or if some are fooled by it, they lose their fitness. Swallow your pride and you will choke your talent. Any country that decides to pay students for their grades will lead this century's world economy.
In capitalism, the greatest return has always followed through sacrifice and risk. University, trade school, any sort of period of unpaid "labor" is a sacrifice and a risk, which offers greater return in the future.
Sacrifice has no merit; it is merely brown-nosing. From that foundational failure, rewarding the unfit through Affirmative Action is the natural progression to failing even more.
While I won't argue on the merits of sacrifice without return, sacrifice with return, an inherent aspect of capitalism, is not "brown-nosing." It's as selfish as anything else in this system.
The rest of the students don't belong there either, since the Educationist dictators have purposely designed the university for richkids living off an allowance.
Really? I live in a very poor area, and everyone was able to afford to get a free or partially free education if they performed well enough in school.
Because those spoiled and sheltered mediocrities don't need to be paid a salary for schoolwork, it is assumed that no one else needs one. So the university is an obsolete aristocratic institution and needs to be replaced with highly paid professional training.
The university is the greatest enemy of aristocracy. It allowed for those of all classes to pursue an education, influenced (but not fully guided) by their own merit, an education the quality of which will be reflected in their future economic success. It's not perfect by any means, and I don't claim that it is (nor does anyone).
Also, only toxic thought processes come out of academia, which is the inevitable outcome of its fundamental error of being work without pay. Academic thought is like astrology, complex procedures and rationalizations following from a fundamental delusion.
Also just as an FYI, I get paid to go to school. So aside from all the other flaws in your system, the idea that it's "work without pay" isn't even universal.
It's not my first rodeo sweetie.
Alright. So what did I do to suggest that I need a safe space lol?
 

Meathead

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2012
Messages
37,187
Reaction score
11,356
Points
1,400
Location
Prague, Czech Republic
In capitalism, the greatest return has always followed through sacrifice and risk. University, trade school, any sort of period of unpaid "labor" is a sacrifice and a risk, which offers greater return in the future....
Also just as an FYI, I get paid to go to school. So aside from all the other flaws in your system, the idea that it's "work without pay" isn't even universal.

Alright. So what did I do to suggest that I need a safe space lol?
Safe space where people are too sensitive to call you what you are. Hurry!
 

yumegari

Active Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2021
Messages
105
Reaction score
60
Points
33
Location
United States
I'll bet you're a huge fan of Thomas Jefferson, right?
Yeah, and a number of founding fathers. Why wouldn't I be?
You claim to be a student of history, yet you are apparently ignorant of the "Market Revolution" and the rise of the Middle Class. This was a unique development of the New World, specifically America which allowed for the first time in history the specialization of agriculture and production creating for the first time an abundance of food and goods, eradicating hunger and creating an educated populace.

This is but one example of the vast improvement to the human condition as a whole the New World, and liberty based free market Capitalism provides.
"You claim to be a student of history, yet you either aren't familiar with every single concept of history and/or you do not view the implications of that concept in the same light as I do."

Ah yes.

Anyway, I can't say I know much about the market revolution, though I'm familiar with it. I know that the market revolution is the basis of modern, 20th and 21st century capitalism, but that's about it.

Although, I'm not sure that all of the implications you're associating with the market revolution are truly there. Yes, since the market revolution we have seen a drastic increase in the production of goods, specifically food. Has hunger been eradicated? Well, we certainly have enough food to eradicate hunger, so I'll at least give you that one. However, it isn't as if the production of enough goods to support society, or even to support a growing populace, hasn't been a feature of capitalist societies prior to that point. And I'd argue that the radical consumerism we see today is the natural consequence of this market revolution, and isn't desirable.

Even assuming that the market revolution was categorically good, it doesn't mean in the absence of the New World a market revolution would've never occurred. It wasn't necessarily the United States that had to lead it, we just happened to be in the position do that at that time.
You could try "Google."

Libraries work as well.
Alright, so "Google" and libraries. I have a very sizable collection of books, and I regularly attend my region's library. What separates my sources from yours?
Please do.

Anything wrong with this? It seems to use a lot of primary sources.
Obviously transport of African slaves to the Americas began after America was discovered. A simple expansion of what had been occurring for centuries or millennia.
Indeed.
It certainly doesn't come off that way.
Well that's an aspect of discussion, sometimes we will misunderstanding the position of others. It is key that we try to correct that misunderstanding when it arises.
Gun rights? :lmao:

{

Sounds nice, until you realize that in the Marxist lexicon, not everyone will be considered a worker. If you own a small business, you’re a private trader, so you’re a class enemy. If the Marxist wants arms and ammunition for the workers, it’s only so they can overthrow the government, once the Marxist reach power, they remove guns and ammo from everyone but their cops and military. Remember, Marxism is all about collective needs, when they don’t need you to have a gun, they will take it away.

“the Marxist position upholds gun ownership as a class right. Similarly, class rights directly confront the liberal belief that the state should be the predominant or sole trustee of firearms.

By classifying the right to bear arms as a class right, rather than a ‘human’, ‘constitutional’, or ‘natural’ right, the Marxist position upholds the social character of gun ownership. The Second Amendment enshrines the right to bear arms as an individual right set in place to protect individuals and their property from threats. Under capitalism, this translates into principally a ruling class and petty-bourgeois right since these are the classes that own “property,” i.e. capital, businesses, the means of production.”
Source: Three Positions on Gun Control}

Marxism holds that there are NO rights, only privilege imbued by collective membership in a particular group.
I haven't thoroughly studied Marx, so I will defer on this. However, I still hold that it's impossible to disagree with every single aspect of a system of beliefs. There's too much overlap, even between disparate ideals.
And Columbus was one of them.
You're ignoring the rest of what I just said. I said "there were many things that led to the United States, there are many that are more relevant, therefore we should celebrate those that bear more direct relevance to the foundation of the United States."
 

Meathead

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2012
Messages
37,187
Reaction score
11,356
Points
1,400
Location
Prague, Czech Republic
Can I ask what I've done to express the sort of sensitivity that "necessitates" such an environment?
I can answer you when you've had more life experience, otherwise you wouldn't understand. It is not unusual with the young and the woke.
 

yumegari

Active Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2021
Messages
105
Reaction score
60
Points
33
Location
United States
I can answer you when you've had more life experience, otherwise you wouldn't understand. It is not unusual with the young and the woke.
Ah, I see. Basic cop-out. When you decide to express the maturity that unfortunately doesn't always come with your age, I'd love to have a respectful discussion, which you refuse to do out of the sort of close-minded arrogance sensible people of all ages and political persuasions should reject.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$145.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top