Get PJ Media on your Apple

Belmont Club

Inheriting the Earth

February 16th, 2014 - 6:25 pm

It is customary to imagine the strong colonizing the weak, but history shows the weak colonize the strong all the time, provided they have a sufficient sense of entitlement. Joseph Conrad captured the paradox exactly in his description of the ship Patna as it sailed with 800 Muslim pilgrims across the Indian ocean to the Red Sea in his novel Lord Jim.

They streamed aboard over three gangways, they streamed in urged by faith and the hope of paradise, they streamed in with a continuous tramp and shuffle of bare feet, without a word, a murmur, or a look back … Eight hundred men and women with faith and hopes …

At the call of an idea they had left their forests, their clearings, the protection of their rulers, their prosperity, their poverty, the surroundings of their youth and the graves of their fathers. They came covered with dust, with sweat, with grime, with rags—the strong men at the head of family parties, the lean old men pressing forward without hope of return; young boys with fearless eyes glancing curiously, shy little girls with tumbled long hair; the timid women muffled up and clasping to their breasts, wrapped in loose ends of soiled head-cloths, their sleeping babies, the unconscious pilgrims of an exacting belief. …

Below the roof of awnings, surrendered to the wisdom of white men and to their courage, trusting the power of their unbelief and the iron shell of their fire-ship, the pilgrims of an exacting faith slept on mats, on blankets, on bare planks, on every deck, in all the dark corners, wrapped in dyed cloths, muffled in soiled rags, with their heads resting on small bundles, with their faces pressed to bent forearms: the men, the women, the children; the old with the young, the decrepit with the lusty—all equal before sleep, death’s brother.

The white men in the pilot-house,  – the infidels — were of course less than nothing in the eyes of their passengers. Every man aboard was dependent on them, but there was nothing in the least incongruous to the 800 passengers about relying on the white man’s magic and fire-ship to cross the vast ocean. If any irony was at all apprehended it was dismissed in a moment. After all, the infidel was put there from on high to serve the believer and that was the end of it. The ship, its engines, its technology all wore the aspect of a magic lamp found in a cave to serve an expedient purpose.

That the weak can enslave the strong is proved by Cuba’s relationship to Venezuela.  The Cuban economy is dwarfed by Venezuela’s. But it is Cuba that calls the shots. There are rumors that even now, the Cuban intelligence service is reinforcing Maduro’s to suppress the opposition. “The Venezuelan regime is a puppet controlled by the Cubans. … Mr. Maduro …promise[d] more Venezuelan handouts for Havana, which already amounted to about 130,000 barrels of oil a day.”  Just as with the pilgrims the oil industry and associated engineering were a “stash” fortuitously placed before Castro for the taking.

Do you object?

Why don’t the people who make stuff stand up for their rights? How can they blithely concede whatever is asked of them?  Easy. Recently someone asked me how it was possible for Islamic rebels in the Southern Philippines to demand yet another autonomous region, and even more money after stealing so much?

“Simple,” I answered. “They have the only thing that matters:  entitlement and ruthlessness.” To illustrate the power of insistence I pointed out that the single greatest massacre of journalists in modern history took place in the province of Maguindanao, in Central Mindanao. The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) based in New York City, “Journalism’s Red Cross” called the Maguindanao massacre ”the deadliest single attack on the press ever documented by CPJ”.  And I’ll bet few have even heard of it.

Fifty seven people, 37 of them journalists, four of them from UNTV were massacred in 2009 by men allegedly working for Andal Ampatuan, Jr, one of Mindanao’s leading Muslim politicians. He did it to so he could win an election against his rival. His men intercepted a convoy of civic leaders, journalists and local dignitaries and killed them all.

Five of the female victims, four of them journalists, were raped before being shot in the genitals. All the victims were buried together with their vehicles, by an excavator belonging to the provincial government, so that ultimately, the taxpayer even paid for it.   The biggest mistake his victims made was to imagine their attackers would be deterred by some shared scruple or mutual sense of decency.  Decency is for nations like Israel who worry about “public opinion” but not everyone is so fastiduous.

The victims died because they didn’t understand that some people are limited by nothing. They’re happy to watch the world burn and use you as fuel. You would think this massacre would guarantee bad press coverage. But maybe the opposite is true. Men like Ampatuan will get better coverage than ever because fear softens the pen of even the boldest writer.

The case is still pending before an appeals court because Ampatuan’s  ”rights” must be observed. He may even be ultimately acquitted on a technicality. The lawyers and procedures must be marvelous things to him, up there with the white man’s navigational magic and the fire ship. They might be incomprehensible to him but they are convenient, as the jetliners used to crash into the World Trade Center were convenient, things to be used without a thought because providence put them there for the enjoyment of the elect.

Deserving’s got very little to with who winds up with what in a jungle.  And it’s no longer sensible to claim that it does.

Kevin Williamson at the National Review described the idea put forth by venture capitalist Tom Perkins, who argued that if liberals believed in progressive taxation — charging him a higher tax rate than others — then they had to correspondingly give him progressive influence. He imagined a sort of symmetry.

Today, he is once again being locked in the stocks of public opinion for suggesting, only partly tongue-in-cheek, that people who pay an enormously disproportionate share of the taxes should have a disproportionate say in public policy. “The Tom Perkins system is: You don’t get to vote unless you pay a dollar of taxes,” he said. “But what I really think is, it should be like a corporation. You pay a million dollars in taxes, you get a million votes. How’s that?”

Blasphemy, surely. But Williamson admits Perkins has a point. “But Mr. Perkins here has only taken a step that progressives took a few generations ago, when they embraced escalating rates of taxation as a foundation for economic justice, and applied it to a different problem. If our political liabilities — taxes — should be as a matter of justice proportional to our income, then why shouldn’t our political input be likewise proportionate? Why should proportionality be the rule in one context and not the other?”

Cass Sunstein ought to agree with Tom Perkins since he famously argued in the New York Times that “liberty depends on taxes”. If so then the providers of taxes are the fountain of all liberty. Therefore people who pay no taxes — invent no fire-ships — have no inherent right to the liberties Sunstein argues are purchased by the exactions of the IRS.

Surely I jest. Ha ha ha. Because in modern political theology the have-nots — let us not say the weak — deserve the fruits of the haves. All property is theft, as Proudhon put it. So the only point to economics is to be the last thief in the series. Cuba has a claim to oil because it needs it. The Muslim rebels in the Philippines deserve whatever they demand because they demand it. Illegal aliens deserve a job in America because politicians will give it to them. In general you have because you can get. There is no linkage between the making and the benefiting.

“From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed”. Isn’t that what Marx really meant ? Of course what he really said is: “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!” But he would say that, wouldn’t he?

Ironically the biggest losers in this clash of conceptions are those who naively think that because you worked for something then it belongs to you. Or those who imagine that simply because their country is theirs then it will remain theirs. They mirror-image their notion of fairness upon the world.

Nothing could be further from the truth. You have what you have because you can hold on to it.  As to countries, there is no spot on earth that hasn’t been grabbed at least once from those who were there before them. The having is in the possessing. And Lord “Tuan” Jim, lost among his dividers and charts, ensconced atop his fire-ship and happy in the solitude of sea and sky may have forgotten the sad lesson of history: that those who want and are willing to take very often get away with it.

The imbalance will persist so long as arbitrage is possible between two modes of conduct.  If we all agree to conduct ourselves according to Ampatuan’s lights his advantage would vanish as it would should he act like those who were killed.  Choose: savagery or civilization. Alas they chose savagery and we choose civilization, surprised we are the worse for it.

At times peoples in their frustration level the playing field. War is when everyone plays by the same set of grim rules, because peace meant institutions living a lie. Whatever else war is, it is fair in its unfairness. History suggests we must choose what rules to live by and abide by them. Either that or all is fair. For a world divided cannot stand against itself. Either we all live like gentlemen or fall to like brutes.


Did you know that you can purchase some of these books and pamphlets by Richard Fernandez and share them with you friends? They will receive a link in their email and it will automatically give them access to a Kindle reader on their smartphone, computer or even as a web-readable document.

The War of the Words for $3.99, Understanding the crisis of the early 21st century in terms of information corruption in the financial, security and political spheres
Rebranding Christianity for $3.99, or why the truth shall make you free
The Three Conjectures at Amazon Kindle for $1.99, reflections on terrorism and the nuclear age
Storming the Castle at Amazon Kindle for $3.99, why government should get small
No Way In at Amazon Kindle $8.95, print $9.99. Fiction. A flight into peril, flashbacks to underground action.
Storm Over the South China Sea $0.99, how China is restarting history in the Pacific
Tip Jar or Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Top Rated Comments   
"So many violations of law, of the Constitution, have taken place that if they lose control of the process or of the coercive organs of the State; that if ever once properly started the legal process would make Germany from 1945-48 look like a time out in a kindergarten. Thus, they cannot lose that power, which has implications for the honesty and conduct of any elections from November on."

You would think so, but maybe the hard core left has calculated that not only the Republicans but the country as a whole would rather avoid prosecuting them than enduring the cost of pursuing them. That if they go quietly the sheriff won't risk the arrest because of the danger to bystanders. They're daring the sheriff to arrest them. This raises real problems the sheriff, because if he lets them get away with it the next time will be worse.

The way the US occupation forces in Japan solved the problem was to create the categories Class A, B and C war crimes. They hanged the Class As and gave relatively lenient treatment to the lower categories.

They didn't prosecute everybody, but they prosecuted enough to make a point. This calls for fine political judgment. On the one hand you want to avoid an open breach, yet on the other hand you must defend the institutions from those who subverted them or else they'll be back.

It sounds simple on paper, but it is very difficult to implement. The damage may take decades to repair. The effort may even fail. The only sure thing is that the sooner the violations stop the easier is the process of reconciliation. Once you wind up the spring of Karma the energy's got to go someplace.
(show less)
8 weeks ago
8 weeks ago Link To Comment
One of the curious things about internal colonialism is that the paradigm of 19th century anti-colonialism applies almost exactly. In each case there is a co-opted native elite; very often this is opposed by a shadowy, nativist movement that ultimately breaks out into open conflict.

You can transpose the 19th century paradigm very neatly into the modern categories of Western elites and "right-wing" movements, though the last doesn't neatly map because the "right wing" movements are sometimes quite leftist in orientation, or are Buddhist groups or Hindu groups. In general they are simply the groups which feel they are being ethnically cleansed. In place of a "comprador" class, we have a "vendedor" class that sells jobs to identity groups and sells identity groups to cronies for cheap.

Sooner or later there will be a crisis, perhaps one accelerated by international conflict or the breakdown of borders. But the paradigm doesn't stop there. One of the debates that racked the anti-colonial movement was whether to oppose it by "parliamentary means" or by "armed revolution". Usually the answers were multiple and its hard to name an anti-colonial movement that was not split along those lines.

In Western terms the parliamentary vs violent choice is framed as "can we find an institutional and constitutional solution?" And if history is any guide, only a few societies will succeed and only if they have a Gandhi or a similar figure. The rest may be overtaken by conflicts and men on horseback in which the cure is worse than the disease. My own belief is that the ultimate choices are beyond any individual's control.

However institutional efforts modify the character of the conflict because parliamentary efforts introduce an element of rationality into the debate and educate the participants. This would not be the case in which everyone grabbed a pitchfork.

Therefore a country which attempts institutional reform is much more likely to avoid the pitfalls of demagogery or succumb to the lure of demagogues. It is much more likely to make a "soft" transition or achieve lasting and nonviolent reform.

I think everyone should be thankful for the Tea Party because it focuses opposition into legtimate channels. Having people debate stuff on TV or filibuster in the Senate means the constitution still stands.

People who strain at the bit in their desire to sweep away the constitution and other institutions, I think, have no idea of what a lawless, unrestricted revolution looks like. That includes people on the left who are eager for "by any means necessary" as well as those who think we should rush to the barricades.

As I point out in the post above each side must be aware the day may come when the cheating becomes universal; when other side adopts the same crooked rules they secretly play by.

And on that day all the advantages of cheating and skulking around vanish. The Assassins were doing OK, then the Mongols came along ... and ... no more Mr Nice Guy. The Mongols out-Assasined the Assassins. Of course going from the Old Man of the Mountain to Hulagu Khan was not much of an improvement.

Hooray for institutions, but may we all abide. Not just some and not the others.


(show less)
(show less)
8 weeks ago
8 weeks ago Link To Comment
We are living under two colonizations as we speak; writ large and writ small. And both are driven, literally and actually, by "the only thing that matters: entitlement and ruthlessness." The smaller is the colonization of the United States, and loss of territory, culture, political freedom, and wealth involved by Mexico. They have neither right nor claim to our territory [we won it fair and square in war. Would they be willing to give back their country to a revived Aztec Empire?], and not being here legally, they have no moral or legal right to live at the expense of American taxpayers forever.

Entitlement and Ruthlessness.

But the larger of the colonizations is the entire country being invaded, subverted, and destroyed by the most vicious enemy we as Americans have ever faced. TWANLOC.

They are not of our country, nation, culture, or history. They hate us beyond measure. They produce nothing. They take everything from those who do produce. And their only weapons are Entitlement and Ruthlessness.

Our weak point is tolerance in both cases. Tolerance of being looted and pillaged by both in our own country. Tolerance of being insulted, lied about, derided, and having to live in fear of their threats and criminality.

If we are to survive, if we are not to exist solely as their drawers of water, hewers of wood, and replenishers of their EBT cards; we must harden our hearts and answer their attacks twofold.

Subotai Bahadur
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (94)
All Comments   (94)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Wretchard said: "As to countries, there is no spot on earth that hasn’t been grabbed at least once from those who were there before them."

A minor point: I wonder if there is any place on Earth that was held by its original colonists in the last 3 centuries?

At one time, I thought the Maoris of New Zealand had that distinction. However I found out that the Maoris came in two waves and the original settlers were wiped out. The original aboriginals of Tasmania might have had that distinction (they were hunted down into extinction by British colonists). Mainland Australian aboriginals migrated into Australia in multiple waves, each wave exterminating the previous occupants. This was very much the case with American Indians. The so called "Kennewick Man" (google him) made that apparent. The Kennewick Man was from a very ancient human race that predated present day American Indians. Some Indian tribes in Washington state made an effort to grab some MSM exposure in falsely claiming the Kennewick Man as one of their own. I suspect that native Hawaiians maybe the only example of original settlers who were not exterminated by subsequent invaders. It's too bad the Hawaiians and non-Mayan American Indians did not have a written language. In particular, a history of Californian Indians before contact with Europeans would have made fascinating reading.
8 weeks ago
8 weeks ago Link To Comment
the Easter Islanders (the great stone head makers) appear to've wiped themselves out without benefit of invasion. The amount of effort put into the totems might have had something to do with whatever became of the people. Here's a look at the extent of the mystery:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03srmm6
.
8 weeks ago
8 weeks ago Link To Comment
The Mayan civilization also collapsed for reasons unknown before Europeans came to Mexico. The Mayan Indians still exist today and many speak their original language (Yucatec). However they've lost most of their original culture. Just the other day, I was studying Internet images of a Mayan cylindrical vase, refer to:

http://www.nga.gov/exhibitions/2004/maya/vase.htm

It was a very high culture that produced that vase. It's frustrating that relatively little of the writing shown could be understood. Supposedly the Mayans had significant libraries of books that were burned by ignorant Spanish priests who followed the conquistadors. Supposedly the classic Mayans were big into astronomy and history.
8 weeks ago
8 weeks ago Link To Comment
re: Perkins insight.

Ages ago someone suggested that we refactor the congress along the lines of the house being representatives of the population (no cap on house members - meaning there's a fixed number of adult citizens per representatives that reflects roughly how many an individual can actually touch in some meaningful way, so there's some small chance of people feeling represented) and another house being 1$ of tax (of any kind paid at the federal level) 1 vote. With one house proposing budgets, the other approving. Results couldn't be any worse than the Left's act of faith that no one would abuse a (welfare) benefit. Meaning they should not distrust the taxpayers' goodwill in exercising this new franchise any more than they distrust those on the dole.
8 weeks ago
8 weeks ago Link To Comment
FREE KURT MIX!!

Federal Judge Stanwood Duval exempts himself from judicial ethics! Rejects demand that he recuse himself. Convenes a LYNCH MOB.

http://www.theneworleansadvocate.com/home/8378581-172/federal-judge-rejects-conflict-accusation

Even New York Times Editor Mark S. Getzfred has raised eyebrows about that.

https://twitter.com/marknyt/status/431887448012881920

Leading up to his trial, some observers — and his own defense at times — contended that Mix was simply a low-level engineer who had become an easy target to appease a public cry for accountability in the wake of the accident.

Duval seemed to acknowledge he believes others should also be tried for their actions, saying he has “noted on the record many times (his) concern that perhaps individuals far more culpable in the ‘fraudulent flow rate’ scheme have not been brought to justice,” though he said it was not his role to drive such decisions.

Duval is also presiding over the trial of Robert Kaluza and Donald Vidrine, BP’s top two supervisors on board the Deepwater Horizon rig at the time of the blowout.
Each faces 11 counts of involuntary manslaughter, along with violating the federal Clean Water Act. Their attorneys have said in court filings they do not object to Duval presiding over the case.


It's "not his role to drive such decisions" but he is going to preside over the trials of those far more culpable for oiling his beach, Vidrine and Kaluza??

NO WONDER NEW ORLEANS IS CONSIDERED TO BE THE MOST CORRUPT CITY IN AMERICA!
8 weeks ago
8 weeks ago Link To Comment
I think there is a general consensus within the United States that the Fourteenth Amendment is not only the law of the land, but a good idea. The question is how the Fourteenth Amendment is interpreted – there is an excellent argument that the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause means that children of illegal immigrants have no right to citizenship in the United States because their parents refused to regard themselves as subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Although Scott v. Sandford unequivocally stated one standard of American citizenship, Roger Taney's definition of American citizenship was certainly not the only one that goes back to the Revolutionary War era. In any case, the Dred Scott decision's definition of citizenship was overturned by the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. One should not assume that the citizenship standards of Virginia corresponded to the citizenship standards of New Hampshire, or vice versa.

The United States of America is a union of competing ideals. We must never assume that our federation is an ideological monolith or that our dreams for the future will ever be in concord. Our federal republic is a work in progress, and that is how it should be.
8 weeks ago
8 weeks ago Link To Comment
Arguing with the mentioned Muslim Filipinos seems much like arguing with a three year old. And will likely turn out the same way if you aren't willing to use your size and resource advantage against him, not just to win, but for the good of everyone's future. That's where we have gone wrong. It's best for EVERYONE when these barbaric regimes are just put down without restraint beyond that demanded by our own humanity.
8 weeks ago
8 weeks ago Link To Comment
Somehow the first part of my post was lost:

Anyone who has watched two well educated and competent adults led around by the demands of a child understands the concept of "entitlement and ruthlessness.”
8 weeks ago
8 weeks ago Link To Comment
Right. And the Republican platform should name Jo Frost (the Super Nanny) as a policy adviser to the President-elect?

Jo Frost vs. Samantha Power in a cage match!!!

Is the female equivalent to crying "Uncle" crying "Auntie"?
8 weeks ago
8 weeks ago Link To Comment
A semantical lifting of the eyebrow that is wilfully off the point of wretchard's insightful post. We retired people never get a day off so we need a frivolous diversion from time to time.

Is "anti-colonial" a fuzzy term for "anti - Imperial"? I understand that "anti-colonial" has become the accepted term for the perfectly natural and justified resistance to the oppression of Empire and it's foreign overlords.

However, linguistically, to me a colony is established in a foreign land with the intent of permanent residence - English in N. America and the Dutch Boers in Africa. Same with the fictional space colonies established on other planets in countless sc-fi pot boilers. Not quite the same thing as simple rule aquired by force over a foreign territory.

Non-colonies in the British Empire included India, Burma, Egypt, Sudan, Straits Settlements, New Guinea, South Sea Islands, Caribbean Islands, British Guiana and Palestine.


British Colonies included:

Gambia Colony (Banjul and Kombo St Mary)
Gold Coast Colony
Kenya Colony
Nigerian Colony
Sierra Leone Colony
Aden Colony
Cape Colony
Natal Colony
Transvaal Colony
Orange Free State Colony
Nova Scotia
Newfoundland
Port Royal
Rupert's Land
New Hampshire
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Connecticut
New York
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
Delaware
Maryland
Virginia
N. Carolina
S. Carolina
Georgia
Australia
New Zealand

I simply don't see the colonies in this list in a single light. Neither does the phrase "anti- colonial" have the same buzz across this list.


Other European Countries had colonies and territories in their Empires too.

Maybe the oppressive effects of Imperial rule turned out to be the same in the colonies and in the other territories of the Empire? I guess you'd have to ask present day Americans, Canadians, Indians, South Africans and Nigerians. Nonetheless, I prefer the phrase "anti Imperial" to "anti-colonial" .

I will now return to the daily grind of retirement.


(show less)
8 weeks ago
8 weeks ago Link To Comment
Your definition of colonial is correct. In the context of the black-brown-yellow liberation movements of the 20th century, it however also intersects with your speculated definition of imperialism. Thus, anti-colonial in the context of Rhodesia was about the genocide of the colonial settlers, the Rhodesians, and the destruction of British commercial power. Consequently, it was according to the Left, both anti-colonial and anti-Imperial. Interestingly, we can contrast the definition of anti-colonial and anti-imperial in the context of the so called American revolution. There, the anti-colonials were actually the colonials who fought the Imperial central government in a bid to secure the liberties which were then being threatened by the central authorities in London. Thus, the Americans were anti-Imperial colonials.

Leftist moralists of course have attempted to use the idea of colonialism and imperialism ideologically in a manner to justify through sophistry supporting the genocide of any White Anglo-Saxon Protestant community whenever and wherever regardless of time, place, or circumstance. Thus, despite the fact that the various anti-Rhodesian terror groups actually approximated to two black tribal nations, they were represented as a singular aggrieved black "Rhodesian" nation solely trying to overthrow a patriarchal, commercialist, BRITISH, power clique. The Rhodesians, ie the colonials, of course didn't help this interpretation by insisting that "some" blacks could become Rhodesians, thus confusing even their own sense of self-determination. The result was a disjointed strategy which ultimately resulted in the genocide of Rhodesia.

In contrast, Americans originally never were confused about the linguistic definition of their war of independence. They were fighting to preserve their EXISTING British-American liberties simply against a growing tyrannical bureaucratic power center of an unelected English clique. To differentiate themselves from their WASP cousins across the pound, they termed themselves Americans. Blacks, browns, Indians, etc were not and could never be considered American. Thus, they considered themselves if they knew the term anti-Imperial. In turn, the English central authorities whipped up the blacks, browns, and Indians, as the French and Spanish had done previously, to wage a war against the Yankee Colonialists.

This last line is of course, the way current leftists are now attempting to wage war against present day Americans. Who, it must be noted, have made the same mistake the Rhodesians made in extending the definition of their nation to alien groups. Every single action in modern politics bent on destroying America uses this tactic in confusing the identity of Americans by denying they are distinct people related by common blood, history, language, and religion, and instead attempt to define it as an abstraction. This abstract terms range from "Nation of Immigrants" to "Everyone can be an American". That is how you tell a difference between we Patriots, often called nativists, against the Aliens, appropriately called Traitors. And if we can steal a page from traitors like Cass Sustein to do it, we will.
8 weeks ago
8 weeks ago Link To Comment
Your definition of colonial is correct. In the context of the black-brown-yellow liberation movements of the 20th century, it however also intersects with your speculated definition of imperialism. Thus, anti-colonial in the context of Rhodesia was about the genocide of the colonial settlers, the Rhodesians, and the destruction of British commercial power. In the context of America, the anti-colonials were actually the colonials who fought the Imperial central government in a bid to secure the liberties which were then being threatened by the central authorities in London.

Leftist moralists of course have attempted to use the idea of colonialism and imperialism ideologically in a manner to justify through sophistry the genocide of any White Anglo-Saxon Protestant community whenever and wherever regardless of time, place, or circumstance. Thus, despite the fact that the various anti-Rhodesian terror groups actually approximated to two black tribal nations, they were represented as a singular aggrieved black "Rhodesian" nation solely trying to overthrow a patriarchal, commercialist, BRITISH, power clique. The Rhodesians of course didn't help this interpretation by insisting that "some" blacks could become Rhodesians, thus confusing even their own sense of self-determination.

In contrast, Americans originally never were confused about the linguistic definition of their war of independence. They were fighting to preserve their EXISTING British-American liberties simply against a growing tyrannical bureaucratic power center of an unelected English clique. Blacks, browns, Indians, etc were not and could never be considered American. Thus, they considered themselves if they knew the term anti-Imperial. In turn, the English central authorities whipped up the blacks, browns, and Indians, as the French and Spanish had done previously, to wage a war against the Yankee Colonialists. This last line is of course, the way current leftists are now attempting to wage war against present day Americans. Who, it must be noted, have made the same mistake the Rhodesians made in extending the definition of their nation to alien groups. Every single action in modern politics bent on destroying America uses this tactic ranging from "Nation of Immigrants" to "Everyone can be an American". That is how you tell a difference between we Patriots, often called nativists, against the Aliens, appropriately called Traitors. And if we can steal a page from traitors like Cass Sustein to do it, we will.
8 weeks ago
8 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Why don't the people who make stuff stand up for their rights?" That's easy. Obama's already told us: "You didn't make that." Thus you have no skin in the game and so no right or reason to resist colonization. Just accept it as your just deserts and maybe we'll let you hang around long enough that you too can say "After all, what difference does it make?"
8 weeks ago
8 weeks ago Link To Comment
A semantical lifting of the eyebrow that is wilfully off the point of wretchard's insightful post. We retired people never get a day off so we need a frivolous diversion from time to time.

Is "anti-colonial" a fuzzy term for "anti - Imperial"? I understand that "anti-colonial" has become the accepted term for the perfectly natural and justified resistance to the oppression of Empire and it's foreign overlords.

However, linguistically, to me a colony is established in a foreign land with the intent of permanent residence - English in N. America and the Dutch Boers in Africa. Same with the fictional space colonies established on other planets in countless sc-fi pot boilers. Not quite the same thing as simple rule aquired by force over a foreign territory.

For example, British Colonies included:

Gambia Colony (Banjul and Kombo St Mary)
Gold Coast Colony
Kenya Colony
Nigerian Colony
Sierra Leone Colony
Aden Colony
Cape Colony
Natal Colony
Transvaal Colony
Orange Free State Colony
Nova Scotia
Newfoundland
Port Royal
Rupert's Land
New Hampshire
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Connecticut
New York
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
Delaware
Maryland
Virginia
N. Carolina
S. Carolina
Georgia
Australia
New Zealand

I simply don't see the colonies in this list in a single light. Neither does the phrase "anti- colonial" have the same buzz across this list.

Non-colonies in the British Empire included India, Burma, Egypt, Sudan, Straits Settlements, New Guinea, South Sea Islands, Caribbean Islands, British Guiana and Palestine.

Other European Countries had colonies and territories in their Empires too.

Maybe the oppressive effects of Imperial rule turned out to be the same in the colonies and in the other territories of the Empire? I guess you'd have to ask present day Americans, Canadians, Indians, South Africans and Nigerians. Nonetheless, I prefer the phrase "anti Imperial" to "anti-colonial" .

I will now return to the daily grind of retirement.





















8 weeks ago
8 weeks ago Link To Comment
Where's Roughcoat to give us a precis of the barbarians "inheriting" Rome?

I've been busy making a wilderness and calling it peace. Apologies.
8 weeks ago
8 weeks ago Link To Comment
The victims died because they didn’t understand that some people are limited by nothing. They’re happy to watch the world burn and use you as fuel.
..................
The biggest problem with atheism is that it leaves its acolyte defenseless against the predations of envy. And this cuts both ways. The reason that all the greatest killers of the 20th century were atheists is because once in power --they were the ones envied. Their paranoia of the mass murderers was merely a function of imputing to everyone else what they thought themselves when they were out of power.
8 weeks ago
8 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 4 Next View All