Something I've noticed about the leftist narrative

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20

troubadour.

Original post by Bornblue

There is a huge disparity of ideological opinion on the left. To pretend it's all just power struggles is not true.

See post #17.

Reply 21

La Verite

Original post by Hydeman

@Bornblue, this is a reply to your post.

La Verite, you need to hit 'reply' near the posts when you reply to them, otherwise the people you're replying to don't get a notification about it.

thanks, didn't realise.

Reply 22

La Verite

Unconvincing to find two leftist who share SIMILARITIES? Both Blair and Galloway support a communist style view of culture and nationality, (one - and all the same), they also share similar views when it comes to immigration and censorship. I never suggested they espouse precisely the same views, but one can see why both are viewed, and why they consider themselves to be on the left side of politics. It's not as if their views differ to such an extent that they both cannot occupy a leftist position simulteanously.

Original post by Bornblue

Very unconvincing.
For a start Blair is pro free market, Galloway is not - huge difference.
Then look at their approaches on Iraq etc.

Yes, I mentioned Galloway's disdain for the removal of pretty much any Arab strong man, however both Blair and Galloway believe in interference in foreign political goings on, only the reasons differ.

To make out like Blair and Galloway are similar because they are on the left is ridiculous. Are Nick Griffin and David Cameron similar because they are on the right?

Really?! So leftist ideology these days differs to such an extent that some lefties are left and others are not? lol. This makes no sense.
Again, they share similarities - but both differ in semantics, discourse - and extremities. I could easily argue as to why I do not think David Cameron is right wing anyway. He shares very little in similarities with old fashioned Tory's. He's an example of the modern, expedient shallow centre politician. Comparing Griffin and Cameron is erroneous.

There is a huge disparity of ideological opinion on the left. To pretend it's all just power struggles is not true.

Er yes, which does not mean that leftists do not share trademarks and similar views.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 23

Das Ich Man

I cannot fathom the stupidity of left wing foreign policy. Has sympathy for our fellow countrymen dropped so low that everywhere we go we cheer the people who would oppress ours? They speak highly of so called Muslim countries, the Chinese, the Russians, the Cubans even though these countries are completely inconsistent with their beliefs in the rule of law. They are dangerous fools and one day, when one of the countries above decides they are sick and tired of our liberal ideology, we will be invaded and pillaged, to a crowd of left wing people cheering the progress from concentration camps.

Reply 24

anarchism101

Original post by La Verite

Thanks for the replies folks. Interesting discussion.

"in European settler colonialism, by contrast, the indigenous population was simply cleared off the scene"

WOW. That is simply not true!!

See for example the indigenous populations of the USA and Australia.

The general consensus about the BE is actually the opposite. The British had a reputation for incorporating natives into society, as well as military, because homogenising the nation into one, under one British rule, was key to speeding up the process of economic proliferation. Your assessment is completely wrong.

A few points here:

i) I didn't say the British Empire, I said European settler colonialism. Obviously the former included elements of the latter, but it also included non-settler forms of colonialism, nor was European settler colonialism limited to the British. Furthermore, your claim that "the British had a reputation for incorporating natives into society" is true in a sense, but this 'reputation' has generally been judged relative to other European empires, rendering it meaningless as a defence of European imperialism in general.
ii) You seem to be conflating extraction colonies, where the British to some extent did try to accomodate part of the native population, simply because it was very difficult to rule otherwise, with settler colonies, which were run in the interests of the settler population and in which the indigenous population was marginalised at best.
iii) You appear to be narrowing the goalposts to British governmental colonial policy, rather than British (and European) colonialism more generally. Often the desires of the imperial 'metropolitan' masters in London conflicted with the desires of the settlers in the colonies, but both are part of European colonialism. For example, in both North America and Southern Africa, the British imperial authorities tried to put limits on the expansion of settlers into native territory, wanting to come to some sort of protectorate-style accomodation with the native leaders. The settlers generally opposed this and often ignored it, moving into the 'frontier' and forcing the natives off. In North America, British restriction of settler expansion with the Proclamation Line was a factor behind the American Revolution.

And in comparison to the Muslims - who set up the North African Islamic slave trade, (after - you guessed it, conquering NA), slaves were forced to leave their homeland for the ME and Arabia, and in time were castrated and wiped out, because the Muslims did not desire a growing ex-slave population made up of blacks. This is one example of ethnic cleansing by the Islamic Empire.

This isn't a comparison, we can't compare an aspect (settler colonialism) of one type of imperialism with a different aspect (slavery) of another.

Slaves in most empires, especially in the classical era, generally came from outside the imperial borders, as they were generally either taken in raids or as prisoners of war, neither of which can usually be done within your own territory (except in the initial conquest, and the occasional rebellion). This is true for the European Empires too - by the time significant European empires actually started taking full-scale control of Africa in the "Scramble for Africa", the Atlantic slave trade had largely been abolished (though in some places slavery itself persisted for a while longer). Within slavery itself, the main difference between the two is that the Arab and Ottoman slave trades were generally taking slaves for use as household servants (as was common to classical period slavery), whereas the European slave trade generally took them to be plantation labourers.

Anyway, I'm sorry - but I have two problems with the responses to my introduction of Islamic Imperialism: firstly, the sense of time. A crime is a crime, whether committed now or 2,000 years previously.

Well, most crimes actually have a statute of limitations preventing them from being prosecuted after a certain length. Though in this case, neither phenomenon was going against international law as far as it existed at the time, so neither committed a 'crime' in the legal sense. You could still say they did in a purely *moral* sense, but at any case this is irrelevant because this isn't the point I was making about the passage of time, I was saying that European colonialism, because it is more recent, has more of a directly observable impact on people's lives. There are still plenty of people alive today who lived under it, for example.

As for Spanish Catholics? Even when extracting Visigoths, you're still left with an Islamic invasion of the Iberian Peninsula, against the wishes of natives who were both European and Catholic.

What do you mean, "when extracting Visigoths"? The Visigoths had, by this point, replaced and or assimilated (the balance of the two is still debated) the pre-existing population, to the extent that they were not really clearly separable. Nor would the concept of "European" have really meant anything to them - that's you trying to anachronistically impose a more recent concept on the past. Furthermore, Iberia had been Catholicised by another previous invader (Rome) who had taken it from another previous invader (Carthage).

Muslims were peculiar during the hey day of their imperialistic success, because they genuinely believed, as many of them do today, to be backed by Qur'anic scripture and the blessing of Allah. This sets aside the Muslims from colonialist ambition borne out of financial motive, exposing something far more deadlier - which cannot be reasoned with.

You're seriously saying there was no motive of economics and power at all in Muslim empires, only religion, and no religious motives at all in Christian empires, only economics and power? Because if so you're clearly very unfamiliar with the historiography of either.

And here's another example of leftist double standards:

In other words, you're using a spreading tactic by switching over to a completely different topic rather than addressing your failures on the first one.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 25

La Verite

‘Native Americans’ were not cleared of the scene by the British. The British negotiated with them, and there is no historical backing behind the assumption that the British ethnically wiped them from the face of the earth. The same can be said with the Aboriginals. I won’t deny crimes were committed, all Empire’s - particularly the Islamic Empire exuded cruelty and aggression as part of their modus operandi.

But you’re attempting to deny the British penchant for incorporating native people into the infrastructure of the Empire. And that makes your assumption flawed.

"This isn't a comparison, we can't compare an aspect (settler colonialism) of one type of imperialism with a different aspect (slavery) of another.”
See, this is simply disingenuous.

You’re trying to evade the crux issue here, by concocting unnecessary untruths and complications. The Muslims both settled, subverted and enslaved foreign populations. What aspect of this are you finding difficult to acknowledge?

"Within slavery itself, the main difference between the two is that the Arab and Ottoman slave trades were generally taking slaves for use as household servants (as was common to classical period slavery), whereas the European slave trade generally took them to be plantation labourers.”

Oh dear.

Not only are you trying to negate the affects of Islamic slavery, by reducing their crimes to mere harmless ‘household servants’, a ridiculous view - not shared by history might I add. I do not wish to patronise you here, but I think you are in need of a thorough reeducation on the Islamic Empire - and its affects on slavery. Your views are extremely naive.

"Though in this case, neither phenomenon was going against international law as far as it existed at the time, so neither committed a 'crime' in the legal sense.”

So the same can be said for the British/European affect on Native Indians and Aboriginals?"

"I was saying that European colonialism, because it is more recent, has more of a directly observable impact on people's lives.”

Ridiculous. The left shall never allow white people to rid themselves of the guilt they have placed upon the white conscious, whether next year or 300 from now. Anyway, according to whom? How about the affects of Islamic Imperialism on Africa? Slavery, FGM, Sharia, tyranny - and Islamic subversion in the form of riots and destruction. How about the affect of Islamic Sunni invasion of Syria? The affects of Islamic invasion are felt by billions all over the world today.

But you’re not interested in their story, or the facts. Because for you ‘the white man and white colonialism is chiefly guilty of something only Europeans exclusively perpetuated’. I’m sure.

"What do you mean, "when extracting Visigoths"? The Visigoths had, by this point, replaced and or assimilated (the balance of the two is still debated) the pre-existing population, to the extent that they were not really clearly separable. Nor would the concept of "European" have really meant anything to them - that's you trying to anachronistically impose a more recent concept on the past.”

Oh my word. What nonsense. Are you honestly trying to suggest European people would not have viewed themselves as European?!

On what grounds?! And I’ll make this very simple for you: even without the Visigothic influence on Spanish society, which was hardly anything near the detrimental affect of Islamic influence, you are still left with an Islamic desire to invade Europe. And they spent hundreds of years attempting to invade Europe from the South as well as the East. But I’m sure you will have an excuse for that.

"You're seriously saying there was no motive of economics and power at all in Muslim empires, only religion, and no religious motives at all in Christian empires, only economics and power? Because if so you're clearly very unfamiliar with the historiography of either.”

Again, you’ll find by reading that Muslim leaders mostly believed the world belonged to the Muslims, backed by Quranic narrative. Of course economics played a part, particularly with the Ottoman Muslims, but the majority of Muslim invasions were funded by the spirt of Islamic expansion before economic interests.

Hey, don’t take my word for it. Try reading sometime. "In other words, you're using a spreading tactic by switching over to a completely different topic rather than addressing your failures on the first one.”Lol, no. Sorry. I’m simply offering an example of hypocrisy, usually attributed to people who regard themselves as leftist.