Something I've noticed about the leftist narrative
Surrounding the issue of 'colonialism', 'imperialism' & prioritising the views of 'native', or 'indigenous' people.
Of course Islam is forever being discussed for some reason or another these days, and just lately I've noticed leftists have a tendency to view Islamic imperialism in a different light to European imperialism. A case of double standards.
And there seems no good reason to do this, than to offer solidarity and friendship due to a sense of commonalities and ideological friendship. For example: mention the British Empire, and the good the BE gave to the world - (as well as the bad), and most leftists (in my experience) flat out refuse there was any good or any sense of benefit as a result of the BE's reign & success. They constantly spend their time reminding me that the BE was borne out of invasion, subversion, pain and tyranny. Which automatically nullifies any achievements and amenities.
However, mention one of the many examples of Islamic imperialism - e.g. Muslim Spain - and suddenly they (lefties) change tact, by trying to convince me Muslim Spain did much for science, philosophy, peace-keeping, stability and the enlightenment. lol. Personally, I've read much about Islamic Spain, and in my view the left are hyperbolising the so-called achievements of Muslims, but that's another debate for another day - because this is thing - remind a lefty the Muslims invaded Spain - they killed Spanish Catholic natives for control, subverting the natives peoples right to self govern, culminating in the formulation of a Sharia Muslim caliphate in a land not belonging to themselves - and lefty's simply deny this reality! Or, rather conveniently they disregard the 'subversion', 'invasion' and 'war' bit, presumably because they have little interest in relegating a large chunk of their brethren's history into the 'colonialists' dust bin, along with European supremacy. So it's one rule for white, Christian Empires - and another for Islamic 'Civilisation'.
And then there's the confusion lefty's seem to suffer when protesting for the 'rights of natives around the world'. They protest for the right of natives in countries where white European settlers exist, e.g. Zimbabwe, South Africa, or other leftist political allies, where a feeling of invasion or usurpation forever remains, e.g. Cuba or Bolivia. It is the natives right to decide the fate and culture of their nation, as well as govern and establish the rule of 'their' land first. Fine by me. However, ask a lefty if they feel the same way about white European natives, and watch their reaction :-P
Is this an example of leftist hypocrisy and double standards?
Of course Islam is forever being discussed for some reason or another these days, and just lately I've noticed leftists have a tendency to view Islamic imperialism in a different light to European imperialism. A case of double standards.
And there seems no good reason to do this, than to offer solidarity and friendship due to a sense of commonalities and ideological friendship. For example: mention the British Empire, and the good the BE gave to the world - (as well as the bad), and most leftists (in my experience) flat out refuse there was any good or any sense of benefit as a result of the BE's reign & success. They constantly spend their time reminding me that the BE was borne out of invasion, subversion, pain and tyranny. Which automatically nullifies any achievements and amenities.
However, mention one of the many examples of Islamic imperialism - e.g. Muslim Spain - and suddenly they (lefties) change tact, by trying to convince me Muslim Spain did much for science, philosophy, peace-keeping, stability and the enlightenment. lol. Personally, I've read much about Islamic Spain, and in my view the left are hyperbolising the so-called achievements of Muslims, but that's another debate for another day - because this is thing - remind a lefty the Muslims invaded Spain - they killed Spanish Catholic natives for control, subverting the natives peoples right to self govern, culminating in the formulation of a Sharia Muslim caliphate in a land not belonging to themselves - and lefty's simply deny this reality! Or, rather conveniently they disregard the 'subversion', 'invasion' and 'war' bit, presumably because they have little interest in relegating a large chunk of their brethren's history into the 'colonialists' dust bin, along with European supremacy. So it's one rule for white, Christian Empires - and another for Islamic 'Civilisation'.
And then there's the confusion lefty's seem to suffer when protesting for the 'rights of natives around the world'. They protest for the right of natives in countries where white European settlers exist, e.g. Zimbabwe, South Africa, or other leftist political allies, where a feeling of invasion or usurpation forever remains, e.g. Cuba or Bolivia. It is the natives right to decide the fate and culture of their nation, as well as govern and establish the rule of 'their' land first. Fine by me. However, ask a lefty if they feel the same way about white European natives, and watch their reaction :-P
Is this an example of leftist hypocrisy and double standards?
(edited 8 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
Well you're making a mistake tarring everyone with left wing views under the same banner as each other. The group of left wingers you are referring to is quite small although they have duped the relatively well natured but idiotic labour leader.
The people that you are referring to- the ken livingstones, stop the war etc are essentially Maoist rather than Marxist. Mao famously supported the uneducated peasants of China and wanted the third world countries (many of whom did suffer under colonialism) to unite and overthrow capitalism as the European proletariat were not up to the task. That is why people like Milne, livingstone etc are so supportive of tyrannical foreign systems because they represent a challenge to the capitalist consensus rather than the democratic left.
In essence these people will support anything if it threatens to destroy capitalism and often surfaces as vulgar anti Americanism.
There are some things, notably fascism and totalitarianism, that are far worse than capitalism- this was pretty much asserted by Marx and only became challenged when the backwards nations of Russia and China tried to jump Marxist evolution and skip a stage with predictable consequences.
The people that you are referring to- the ken livingstones, stop the war etc are essentially Maoist rather than Marxist. Mao famously supported the uneducated peasants of China and wanted the third world countries (many of whom did suffer under colonialism) to unite and overthrow capitalism as the European proletariat were not up to the task. That is why people like Milne, livingstone etc are so supportive of tyrannical foreign systems because they represent a challenge to the capitalist consensus rather than the democratic left.
In essence these people will support anything if it threatens to destroy capitalism and often surfaces as vulgar anti Americanism.
There are some things, notably fascism and totalitarianism, that are far worse than capitalism- this was pretty much asserted by Marx and only became challenged when the backwards nations of Russia and China tried to jump Marxist evolution and skip a stage with predictable consequences.
OK, here goes:
- Firstly, time. European imperialism is simply more recent. More importantly, European colonialism is still within living memory and therefore as such has a considerably greater visible impact today. Though that is admittedly a political answer rather than historical one.
- Secondly, scale. There's historical debate about to what extent we can analyse land-based empires that simply conquered adjacent territory in the same as we can global transoceanic ones. France ruling Vietnam is inevitably a considerably different phenomenon to it ruling say, Belgium.
- Thirdly, and most importantly, the question of settler colonialism. Classical Empires, generally speaking, tried to assimilate their conquered populations. This is broadly true for Persia, Rome, the Caliphate, etc. Inevitably some settlers moved in, yes, but generally acculturation was more important than population replacement, and the established polities were not centred around the settlers. in European settler colonialism, by contrast, the indigenous population was simply cleared off the scene, either by expulsion or straight-up slaughter (obviously in some cases disease played a role too, but that's not really a question of ideology), and the established colonial states were conceived as existing for the settlers.
With that summarised in general, here's some more specific problems with OP's post:
And I should remind you that these "Spanish Catholic natives" were in fact themselves invaders - Visigoths who had arrived a few centuries earlier during the collapse of Roman rule in Iberia.
What lefties are there who say only indigenous peoples in the Americas, Oceania, etc, should have the right to decide the fate of their countries? I certainly don't know of any.
- Firstly, time. European imperialism is simply more recent. More importantly, European colonialism is still within living memory and therefore as such has a considerably greater visible impact today. Though that is admittedly a political answer rather than historical one.
- Secondly, scale. There's historical debate about to what extent we can analyse land-based empires that simply conquered adjacent territory in the same as we can global transoceanic ones. France ruling Vietnam is inevitably a considerably different phenomenon to it ruling say, Belgium.
- Thirdly, and most importantly, the question of settler colonialism. Classical Empires, generally speaking, tried to assimilate their conquered populations. This is broadly true for Persia, Rome, the Caliphate, etc. Inevitably some settlers moved in, yes, but generally acculturation was more important than population replacement, and the established polities were not centred around the settlers. in European settler colonialism, by contrast, the indigenous population was simply cleared off the scene, either by expulsion or straight-up slaughter (obviously in some cases disease played a role too, but that's not really a question of ideology), and the established colonial states were conceived as existing for the settlers.
With that summarised in general, here's some more specific problems with OP's post:
Original post by La Verite
remind a lefty the Muslims invaded Spain - they killed Spanish Catholic natives for control, subverting the natives peoples right to self govern, culminating in the formulation of a Sharia Muslim caliphate in a land not belonging to themselves
remind a lefty the Muslims invaded Spain - they killed Spanish Catholic natives for control, subverting the natives peoples right to self govern, culminating in the formulation of a Sharia Muslim caliphate in a land not belonging to themselves
And I should remind you that these "Spanish Catholic natives" were in fact themselves invaders - Visigoths who had arrived a few centuries earlier during the collapse of Roman rule in Iberia.
And then there's the confusion lefty's seem to suffer when protesting for the 'rights of natives around the world'. They protest for the right of natives in countries where white European settlers exist, e.g. Zimbabwe, South Africa, or other leftist political allies, where a feeling of invasion or usurpation forever remains, e.g. Cuba or Bolivia. It is the natives right to decide the fate and culture of their nation, as well as govern and establish the rule of 'their' land first. Fine by me. However, ask a lefty if they feel the same way about white European natives, and watch their reaction :-P
What lefties are there who say only indigenous peoples in the Americas, Oceania, etc, should have the right to decide the fate of their countries? I certainly don't know of any.
Original post by La Verite
Is this an example of leftist hypocrisy and double standards?
Why are you conflating sympathy for Muslim imperialism, and antipathy to British imperialism, with "the left", i.e. socialist economics?
I am a left-winger and I see the good and bad in both empires as well as in both cultural groups today. It simply is not relevant to left-wing economics in any way.
Original post by Davij038
The group of left wingers you are referring to is quite small although they have duped the relatively well natured but idiotic labour leader.
I agreed with most of your post except this sentence. I would argue that the group being referred to, the regressive left, is quite a substantial majority of people who describe themselves as leftists. I couldn't produce figures for it but, in my own experience, the anti-totalitarian left is more or less dead these days. Most people on the left today are far too concerned with living up to labels and and not being on the same side as people they don't like than they are with acting on their supposed principles.
(edited 8 years ago)
What is it with the right and their inability to see an argument as more than a this or that dichotomy?
Original post by Hydeman
I agreed with most of your post except this sentence. I would argue that the group being referred to, the regressive left, is quite a substantial majority of people who describe themselves as leftists. I couldn't produce figures for it but, in my own experience, the anti-totalitarian left is more or less dead these days. Most people on the left today are far too concerned with living up to labels and and not being on the same side as people they don't like than they are with acting on their supposed principles.
I'm not so sure. I think a lot of the support for Corbyn comes from cynics rather than actively reactionary regressive types. I think this is essentially backlash from Blair and the nuclear weapon debacle (and I support the Iraq war) and some of the reactions of the right wing press against Corbyn
* not the reasonable stuff but the things like the national anthem and Boeing scandal. I think this may have been done on purpose so that any reasonable criticism would be seen as a establishment stitch up. I think most people who voted for him did so on the back of his economic policies as well as a belief that at its simplest the UK should not go to war particularly in the Middle East.
Even if it means that fascist and totalitarian regimes are allowed to go unimpeded.
Original post by La Verite
However, mention one of the many examples of Islamic imperialism - e.g. Muslim Spain - and suddenly they (lefties) change tact, by trying to convince me Muslim Spain did much for science, philosophy, peace-keeping, stability and the enlightenment. lol. Personally, I've read much about Islamic Spain, and in my view the left are hyperbolising the so-called achievements of Muslims, but that's another debate for another day - because this is thing - remind a lefty the Muslims invaded Spain - they killed Spanish Catholic natives for control, subverting the natives peoples right to self govern, culminating in the formulation of a Sharia Muslim caliphate in a land not belonging to themselves - and lefty's simply deny this reality! Or, rather conveniently they disregard the 'subversion', 'invasion' and 'war' bit, presumably because they have little interest in relegating a large chunk of their brethren's history into the 'colonialists' dust bin, along with European supremacy. So it's one rule for white, Christian Empires - and another for Islamic 'Civilisation'.
And then there's the confusion lefty's seem to suffer when protesting for the 'rights of natives around the world'. They protest for the right of natives in countries where white European settlers exist, e.g. Zimbabwe, South Africa, or other leftist political allies, where a feeling of invasion or usurpation forever remains, e.g. Cuba or Bolivia. It is the natives right to decide the fate and culture of their nation, as well as govern and establish the rule of 'their' land first. Fine by me. However, ask a lefty if they feel the same way about white European natives, and watch their reaction :-P
Is this an example of leftist hypocrisy and double standards?
However, mention one of the many examples of Islamic imperialism - e.g. Muslim Spain - and suddenly they (lefties) change tact, by trying to convince me Muslim Spain did much for science, philosophy, peace-keeping, stability and the enlightenment. lol. Personally, I've read much about Islamic Spain, and in my view the left are hyperbolising the so-called achievements of Muslims, but that's another debate for another day - because this is thing - remind a lefty the Muslims invaded Spain - they killed Spanish Catholic natives for control, subverting the natives peoples right to self govern, culminating in the formulation of a Sharia Muslim caliphate in a land not belonging to themselves - and lefty's simply deny this reality! Or, rather conveniently they disregard the 'subversion', 'invasion' and 'war' bit, presumably because they have little interest in relegating a large chunk of their brethren's history into the 'colonialists' dust bin, along with European supremacy. So it's one rule for white, Christian Empires - and another for Islamic 'Civilisation'.
And then there's the confusion lefty's seem to suffer when protesting for the 'rights of natives around the world'. They protest for the right of natives in countries where white European settlers exist, e.g. Zimbabwe, South Africa, or other leftist political allies, where a feeling of invasion or usurpation forever remains, e.g. Cuba or Bolivia. It is the natives right to decide the fate and culture of their nation, as well as govern and establish the rule of 'their' land first. Fine by me. However, ask a lefty if they feel the same way about white European natives, and watch their reaction :-P
Is this an example of leftist hypocrisy and double standards?
Agreed completely. This isn't even about colonialism at this point, either. This has to do with Germany and the supposed guilt imposed by the media at the time and onwards from the Holocaust happenings. It became the European creation myth. When the public consciousness is battered with these ideas that we are somehow to blame for a genocide of a people or enslavement of another or displacement of some... This culminates in to self-hatred if the message of all is delivered correctly.
And what did we see after the war? A baby boom, initially, in our country due to victory, high morale and a feeling of security for a while. It only takes twenty years after this victory for things to start crumbing down. We lose the empire, the queen seemingly disappears from public view; we begin to immigrate numbers of non-White peoples to cheaply rebuild our infrastructure which lead to riots.
You're right. It's absolute hypocrisy. The problem these leftists face is they're the ones who say "i'm so sorry for all these bad things White people did. This belongs to you", instead of "we apologise for taking control of your countries- you can have them back, but we sure as hell aren't funding you further you ungrateful plebs, and stay out of Blightey."
Original post by anarchism101
OK, here goes:
- Firstly, time. European imperialism is simply more recent. More importantly, European colonialism is still within living memory and therefore as such has a considerably greater visible impact today. Though that is admittedly a political answer rather than historical one.
- Secondly, scale. There's historical debate about to what extent we can analyse land-based empires that simply conquered adjacent territory in the same as we can global transoceanic ones. France ruling Vietnam is inevitably a considerably different phenomenon to it ruling say, Belgium.
- Thirdly, and most importantly, the question of settler colonialism. Classical Empires, generally speaking, tried to assimilate their conquered populations. This is broadly true for Persia, Rome, the Caliphate, etc. Inevitably some settlers moved in, yes, but generally acculturation was more important than population replacement, and the established polities were not centred around the settlers. in European settler colonialism, by contrast, the indigenous population was simply cleared off the scene, either by expulsion or straight-up slaughter (obviously in some cases disease played a role too, but that's not really a question of ideology), and the established colonial states were conceived as existing for the settlers.
.
- Firstly, time. European imperialism is simply more recent. More importantly, European colonialism is still within living memory and therefore as such has a considerably greater visible impact today. Though that is admittedly a political answer rather than historical one.
- Secondly, scale. There's historical debate about to what extent we can analyse land-based empires that simply conquered adjacent territory in the same as we can global transoceanic ones. France ruling Vietnam is inevitably a considerably different phenomenon to it ruling say, Belgium.
- Thirdly, and most importantly, the question of settler colonialism. Classical Empires, generally speaking, tried to assimilate their conquered populations. This is broadly true for Persia, Rome, the Caliphate, etc. Inevitably some settlers moved in, yes, but generally acculturation was more important than population replacement, and the established polities were not centred around the settlers. in European settler colonialism, by contrast, the indigenous population was simply cleared off the scene, either by expulsion or straight-up slaughter (obviously in some cases disease played a role too, but that's not really a question of ideology), and the established colonial states were conceived as existing for the settlers.
.
This. Not to mention imperial acquisitions made for the sole purpose of extractivism and exploitation.
Yeah it's mad how people act like Ottoman invasion, genocide, mass forced conversion of religion, slavery, sex slavery and pillaging didn't exist over hundreds of years never happened.
You think modern day Turks feel the need to repent and apologise for that? Do they hell and nor should they just like modern Brits shouldn't. Even if you did think we should, at least be consistent like OP says. But you know what some people are like. I guess it's ok to hold ourselves to a higher standard than Turks as well as Arabs etc but admit your racism when you do it
You think modern day Turks feel the need to repent and apologise for that? Do they hell and nor should they just like modern Brits shouldn't. Even if you did think we should, at least be consistent like OP says. But you know what some people are like. I guess it's ok to hold ourselves to a higher standard than Turks as well as Arabs etc but admit your racism when you do it
Original post by Hydeman
I agreed with most of your post except this sentence. I would argue that the group being referred to, the regressive left, is quite a substantial majority of people who describe themselves as leftists. I couldn't produce figures for it but, in my own experience, the anti-totalitarian left is more or less dead these days. Most people on the left today are far too concerned with living up to labels and and not being on the same side as people they don't like than they are with acting on their supposed principles.
I do wish people would stop generalizing. The 'left' is not a thing as such.There are so many differences in opinions. Part of the reason the left can never bloody win an election is that they are too busy arguing among themselves.
To try and make out like the 'left' are one unified body with one party line is ludicrous. The left includes anyone from Blair and Brown to diehard communists. I don't stereotype the right with the BNP or UKIP so i'm not sure why you pick the worst examples of people on the left and describe that as 'most on the left'.
Original post by La Verite
However, mention one of the many examples of Islamic imperialism - e.g. Muslim Spain - and suddenly they (lefties) change tact, by trying to convince me Muslim Spain did much for science, philosophy, peace-keeping, stability and the enlightenment. lol. Personally, I've read much about Islamic Spain, and in my view the left are hyperbolising the so-called achievements of Muslims, but that's another debate for another day - because this is thing - remind a lefty the Muslims invaded Spain - they killed Spanish Catholic natives for control, subverting the natives peoples right to self govern, culminating in the formulation of a Sharia Muslim caliphate in a land not belonging to themselves - and lefty's simply deny this reality! Or, rather conveniently they disregard the 'subversion', 'invasion' and 'war' bit, presumably because they have little interest in relegating a large chunk of their brethren's history into the 'colonialists' dust bin, along with European supremacy. So it's one rule for white, Christian Empires - and another for Islamic 'Civilisation'.
The original Islamic empire ended over 1000 years ago. The British Empire ended within living memory. Bit of a difference there. Besides, the Umayyad Caliphate did not displace native Spanish leaders, the rulers of Spain at that time were the Vandals, who were Germanic peoples who had conquered Spain barely two centuries before (from the Romans, who also conquered it by force, from the Carthaginians, who conquered it from the Celts, who conquered it from the Aetio-Iberian farmers, who conquered it from the original stone age European hunter gatherers, who conquered it from the Neanderthals...)
Original post by Bornblue
I do wish people would stop generalizing. The 'left' is not a thing as such.There are so many differences in opinions. Part of the reason the left can never bloody win an election is that they are too busy arguing among themselves.
To try and make out like the 'left' are one unified body with one party line is ludicrous. The left includes anyone from Blair and Brown to diehard communists. I don't stereotype the right with the BNP or UKIP so i'm not sure why you pick the worst examples of people on the left and describe that as 'most on the left'.
To try and make out like the 'left' are one unified body with one party line is ludicrous. The left includes anyone from Blair and Brown to diehard communists. I don't stereotype the right with the BNP or UKIP so i'm not sure why you pick the worst examples of people on the left and describe that as 'most on the left'.
I haven't said anything about the views of most people on the left being monolithic -- I've made a statement about their conduct. The left argues among itself on detail, not on general aims and motives. Power struggles don't count as the kind of argument that you're referring to, either.
I maintain that this accurately describes most people on the modern left:
Original post by Hydeman
far too concerned with living up to labels and and not being on the same side as people they don't like than they are with acting on their supposed principles.
And that includes everyone from Blair and Brown to die-hard Communists.
Original post by Hydeman
I haven't said anything about the views of most people on the left being monolithic -- I've made a statement about their conduct. The left argues among itself on detail, not on general aims and motives. Power struggles don't count as the kind of argument that you're referring to, either.
That's just not true. Do Tony Blair and George Galloway have the same aims and motives?
I don't have the same aims and motives as either.
There is a huge variety of opinions on 'the left' and it is far from restricted to just power struggles.
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!! 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.
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.
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. Simply put, I don't buy into this, 'yeah, but that happened a long time ago'. Islam conquered far more than the Christians, and it was essentially the Christians who stopped them from conquering even more territory. Spain still deals with its past, the affects of Muslim subversion, with many Muslims today demanding a right to land, or at least acknowledgement of something they believe belongs to them! 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. The Muslims tried to invade France numerously too, but silly me - it happened a long time ago, so that makes it ok, and less evil than the BE.
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.
And here's another example of leftist double standards:
The strange double standards the left has for violence in the name of ‘protest' or ‘injustice'. I live in Bradford, and whenever discussing the Bradford Riots, or any one of the countless example of Muslim violence witnessed by locals, I always receive a response of vindication for the many violent acts of racist Muslims, irrespective of any uncomfortable truths & pertaining details. Yet, ask whether working class whites should riot and attack Muslims as a last resort for the 30 plus year grooming scandal, and the resounding answer is always ’NO’. So for one religious demographic it is ok to try burn down pubs with residents inside, essentially justifying attempted murder - motived by nothing more than selfishness and dubious reasoning, but when thousands of English working class girls are passed around, raped and molested, while the left and leftist authorities look the other way over a 30-40 year period, it is not ok to respond with violent indignation! In fact do so, and you will be cast as the stereotypical racist knuckle dragger! Violence seems to be an exclusive card which can only be played by the left, whenever they feel the need.
Lastly, I shouldn't be tarring all leftists with the same brush. True, but the left seems to have no problem with tarring nationalists, self preservationists, anti-islamisation & right wingers with the same brush. It seems to me that leftism is no longer really concerned with classical marxism, or destroying capitalism. Agreed, there are some socialists today who still wear the ancient red hat of economic communism, however, and again - in my experience, leftists seem more concerned with trying to subvert European culture and tradition - beyond financial means. I suppose what I'm witnessing here is the left's penchant for shoddy interpretations of historic events :-P
And for that reason I'll never be a leftist. I just wish they'd understand consistency and reason.
"in European settler colonialism, by contrast, the indigenous population was simply cleared off the scene"
WOW. That is simply not true!! 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.
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.
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. Simply put, I don't buy into this, 'yeah, but that happened a long time ago'. Islam conquered far more than the Christians, and it was essentially the Christians who stopped them from conquering even more territory. Spain still deals with its past, the affects of Muslim subversion, with many Muslims today demanding a right to land, or at least acknowledgement of something they believe belongs to them! 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. The Muslims tried to invade France numerously too, but silly me - it happened a long time ago, so that makes it ok, and less evil than the BE.
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.
And here's another example of leftist double standards:
The strange double standards the left has for violence in the name of ‘protest' or ‘injustice'. I live in Bradford, and whenever discussing the Bradford Riots, or any one of the countless example of Muslim violence witnessed by locals, I always receive a response of vindication for the many violent acts of racist Muslims, irrespective of any uncomfortable truths & pertaining details. Yet, ask whether working class whites should riot and attack Muslims as a last resort for the 30 plus year grooming scandal, and the resounding answer is always ’NO’. So for one religious demographic it is ok to try burn down pubs with residents inside, essentially justifying attempted murder - motived by nothing more than selfishness and dubious reasoning, but when thousands of English working class girls are passed around, raped and molested, while the left and leftist authorities look the other way over a 30-40 year period, it is not ok to respond with violent indignation! In fact do so, and you will be cast as the stereotypical racist knuckle dragger! Violence seems to be an exclusive card which can only be played by the left, whenever they feel the need.
Lastly, I shouldn't be tarring all leftists with the same brush. True, but the left seems to have no problem with tarring nationalists, self preservationists, anti-islamisation & right wingers with the same brush. It seems to me that leftism is no longer really concerned with classical marxism, or destroying capitalism. Agreed, there are some socialists today who still wear the ancient red hat of economic communism, however, and again - in my experience, leftists seem more concerned with trying to subvert European culture and tradition - beyond financial means. I suppose what I'm witnessing here is the left's penchant for shoddy interpretations of historic events :-P
And for that reason I'll never be a leftist. I just wish they'd understand consistency and reason.
(edited 8 years ago)
"That's just not true. Do Tony Blair and George Galloway have the same aims and motives?I don't have the same aims and motives as either. There is a huge variety of opinions on 'the left' and it is far from restricted to just power struggles."
They're hardly streets apart. Maybe foreign policy differs, though both support intervention and subversion - for differing reasons and agendas.
And when it comes to culture and immigration, pretty much yes. Remember Tony's visa scandal - and his goal to import as many non-white, Muslim people into Britain, changing much of the nations landscape in the space of 20 years, for the future guarantee of a leftist vote. How is this any different to Galloway's communistic, traitorous ideas of culture, immigration and Islamization of places like Dewsbury and Bradford?
They're hardly streets apart. Maybe foreign policy differs, though both support intervention and subversion - for differing reasons and agendas.
And when it comes to culture and immigration, pretty much yes. Remember Tony's visa scandal - and his goal to import as many non-white, Muslim people into Britain, changing much of the nations landscape in the space of 20 years, for the future guarantee of a leftist vote. How is this any different to Galloway's communistic, traitorous ideas of culture, immigration and Islamization of places like Dewsbury and Bradford?
Original post by Bornblue
That's just not true. Do Tony Blair and George Galloway have the same aims and motives?
I don't have the same aims and motives as either.
There is a huge variety of opinions on 'the left' and it is far from restricted to just power struggles.
I don't have the same aims and motives as either.
There is a huge variety of opinions on 'the left' and it is far from restricted to just power struggles.
Original post by Hydeman
I haven't said anything about the views of most people on the left being monolithic -- I've made a statement about their conduct.
Original post by Hydeman
far too concerned with living up to labels and not being on the same side as people they don't like than they are with acting on their supposed principles.
I hope that makes it clear.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by La Verite
"That's just not true. Do Tony Blair and George Galloway have the same aims and motives?I don't have the same aims and motives as either. There is a huge variety of opinions on 'the left' and it is far from restricted to just power struggles."
They're hardly streets apart. Maybe foreign policy differs, though both support intervention and subversion - for differing reasons and agendas.
And when it comes to culture and immigration, pretty much yes. Remember Tony's visa scandal - and his goal to import as many non-white, Muslim people into Britain, changing much of the nations landscape in the space of 20 years, for the future guarantee of a leftist vote. How is this any different to Galloway's communistic, traitorous ideas of culture, immigration and Islamization of places like Dewsbury and Bradford?
They're hardly streets apart. Maybe foreign policy differs, though both support intervention and subversion - for differing reasons and agendas.
And when it comes to culture and immigration, pretty much yes. Remember Tony's visa scandal - and his goal to import as many non-white, Muslim people into Britain, changing much of the nations landscape in the space of 20 years, for the future guarantee of a leftist vote. How is this any different to Galloway's communistic, traitorous ideas of culture, immigration and Islamization of places like Dewsbury and Bradford?
Oh you're one of the 'Muslims are taking over' nutjobs?
Have a nice day.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by La Verite
"That's just not true. Do Tony Blair and George Galloway have the same aims and motives?I don't have the same aims and motives as either. There is a huge variety of opinions on 'the left' and it is far from restricted to just power struggles."
They're hardly streets apart. Maybe foreign policy differs, though both support intervention and subversion - for differing reasons and agendas.
And when it comes to culture and immigration, pretty much yes. Remember Tony's visa scandal - and his goal to import as many non-white, Muslim people into Britain, changing much of the nations landscape in the space of 20 years, for the future guarantee of a leftist vote. How is this any different to Galloway's communistic, traitorous ideas of culture, immigration and Islamization of places like Dewsbury and Bradford?
They're hardly streets apart. Maybe foreign policy differs, though both support intervention and subversion - for differing reasons and agendas.
And when it comes to culture and immigration, pretty much yes. Remember Tony's visa scandal - and his goal to import as many non-white, Muslim people into Britain, changing much of the nations landscape in the space of 20 years, for the future guarantee of a leftist vote. How is this any different to Galloway's communistic, traitorous ideas of culture, immigration and Islamization of places like Dewsbury and Bradford?
@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.
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.
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.
Very unconvincing.
For a start Blair is pro free market, Galloway is not - huge difference.
Then look at their approaches on Iraq etc.
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?
There is a huge disparity of ideological opinion on the left. To pretend it's all just power struggles is not true.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Plagiarism Q5 AQA Eng Lang Paper 1
- English language, descriptive writing
- Help on English Language
- Edexcel GCSE History Paper 2 (1HI0 2A-2W) - 7th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- english language paper 1 question 5 help
- gcses 2023
- AQA GCSE English Language Paper 1 (8700/1) - 23rd May 2024 [Exam Chat]
- How? what? To get grade 9
- Oxbridge must help pupils from state schools
- A Level Media Studies Study Group 2022-2023
- HELP! I think I've messed up Lang paper 1. AQA GCSE
- A2 English Literature comparison coursework help
- Urgent! Gcse english language paper 1
- English Literature Degree
- Edexcel A Level English Literature Paper 2 (9ET0 02) - 8th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Jekyll & Hyde Predictions
- A-level Literature NEA (prose)
- PhD Woes - Too Late?
- alevel psychology content
- english language 40/40 Q5?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 14 hours ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Trending
Last reply 14 hours ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?
