The "bully" in the light of history.

[The Outlier]

Its interesting how our modern perception of a "bully," when applied to history, is very-over-simplified. When we think of a bully, we think of the big kid who takes lunch money from the little kid. We think of the bully as the bigger guy in most cases. Bullying is a big problem in our school system and society in general. Innocent people (or just people no less innocent than anyone else) are attacked either physically, verbally or psychologically because they are different or because they made an unpopular mistake that differed from the more popular mistakes of their peers. But in contexts like these it is much clearer who is the bully and who is the victim. Now take that story and stretch it out to hundreds or thousands of years. Replace the bully and the victim with a nation or people group that evolves over time. Its not nearly as clear-cut.

Before I give two examples, let me clarify that this thread is not about Israel, Palestine, American pilgrims or the American Indians. These are just examples to illustrate a point and then open it up for discussion:

In American history, we are taught in schools that the pilgrims brutally massacred the Indians. Some of that is true. We white people are here and the Indians are few and far between. But its not nearly that simple. Sure, we are the most powerful country in the world today. But we were not then. Sure the white people eventually outnumbered the Indians. But it was not always that way. When the pilgrims came here, they were outnumbered. They had better technology but they didn't speak the language, they had no "society" to speak of, no real military and no knowledge of what was over here. Some wanted religious freedom because the bullies in European empires were persecuting them. Some wanted opportunity and religion had little to do with it. They hadn't been successful so far and they wanted a fresh start. The Indians were in hundreds of different tribes- some friendly and some not. They knew the territory, they had been here hundreds of years and they were not all innocent. Some would raid other Indian villages, kill every man rape every woman and take the survivors as slaves. Some had ideologies based on warfare and status. The language barrier was huge. If you were a pilgrim here, you had to make your own way. You had to find your own land, cultivate it, build your own house and get your own food. Some got help from friendly Indian tribes. Some didn't. If you knew their language you could relate to them. If you didn't and a guy with funny hair showed up on your doorstep yelling something in a foreign language and he had an axe in his hand, you did what you had to do based on what you knew. There may or may not have been a postal system then. There were no telephones and no way to call for help. You did what you had to do based on what you understood to be true. Any political decision making may have been hundreds of miles away from you. You would find out about it weeks later if you were lucky. An Indian in your yard might be mad at a decision your makeshift government did based on rumors they heard from people like you. Information was hard to find. Sure, you had friends back in Europe. But they were often interested in you merely for financial gain. You had to fight them on occasion too. Even when the settlers grew in number and conquered territory in the east, they were still outnumbered in the west by Indians. They may have gotten a better education academically speaking than the Indians but academics is not the only kind of education. They still did not see the whole picture or of what was going on around them. And they were anything but the most powerful nation in the world. They had enemies in Europe that were far more powerful than they would be in their lifetime. So the bully in our eyes was not necessarily the bully back then.

Now, lets look at modern-day Israel. They are a beast of military force and influence compared to Palestine. Their leader is very powerful. They may have the upper hand, in general over the Palestinians as far as money and weapons. Even if they don't, they are friends with the most powerful nation in the world. So many of us in our modern day American thinking label them as the bully- completely ignoring the past as well of some of the present. Think of how many people have tried to wipe out or conquer the Jews. Here is a list of just a few: The Egyptians, the Philistines, The Amorites, The Amalekites, The Moabites, the Ammonites, the Midianites, The Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Romans, the Nazis, and the modern-day enemies of Israel which surround them on every side. With respect to that one people group across the big valley from them, they may appear to be the bully. That does not make them the bully in the light of history. That does not even make them the bully now. They could be depending on your point of view. But whether they are or aren’t, it has nothing to do with their present state of power, wealth or even the fact that they are buddies with the most powerful nation in the world.

So, whenever you look at a war or a skirmish in a foreign land while watching it safely from the comfort of your living room, and you want to take sides, just think about this concept first: The one you think is the bully because they have the upper hand can be picking on another bully who had the upper hand on someone else years ago. The victim may also be the bully to someone smaller than them. And if you look hundreds of years back in history their positions may be reversed. The bully today may have been the victim yesterday. The terms “underdog” and “bully” are not synonomous. The big kid in the lunchroom is the bully with respect to the little kid he is stealing lunch money from. He also may be bullied by his dad at home. Or maybe that bully was once scrawny and the kid he is stealing lunch money from may have been bigger than him back in Kindergarden.

 

[DaisyDay]

That does not even make them the bully now. They could be depending on your point of view. But whether they are or aren’t, it has nothing to do with their present state of power, wealth or even the fact that they are buddies with the most powerful nation in the world.

Sure it does. It has everything to do with their present state of power relative to the Palestinians.

But who is a bully is not set in stone for all times. Circumstances change, usually drastically, over time.

 

[GarfieldJL]

Sure it does. It has everything to do with their present state of power relative to the Palestinians.

That doesn't make them a bully, if the Palestinians would stop their violent behavior, the Israelis would be treating them far differently than they currently are.

But who is a bully is not set in stone for all times. Circumstances change, usually drastically, over time.

There are also times when people are villified as being bullies (such as the Israelis), because they choose not to be suicidal.

 

[The Outlier]

That doesn't make them a bully, if the Palestinians would stop their violent behavior, the Israelis would be treating them far differently than they currently are.



There are also times when people are villified as being bullies (such as the Israelis), because they choose not to be suicidal.

Agreed and the idea that the Kidron Valley should not be the natural border between Israel and Palestine is idiotic. Its a natural way to keep invaders out of both countries. No primitive terrorist organization on foot wants to walk down into a 2000 foot valley to ambush someone. Sure they can launch missiles anyway and avoid ground warfare. But that natural border helps keep the riff raff out so that the only way to attack Israel or Palestine is to launch missiles or invade from the air.

 

[CaDan]

Its interesting how our modern perception of a "bully," when applied to history, is very-over-simplified. When we think of a bully, we think of the big kid who takes lunch money from the little kid. We think of the bully as the bigger guy in most cases. Bullying is a big problem in our school system and society in general. Innocent people (or just people no less innocent than anyone else) are attacked either physically, verbally or psychologically because they are different or because they made an unpopular mistake that differed from the more popular mistakes of their peers. But in contexts like these it is much clearer who is the bully and who is the victim. Now take that story and stretch it out to hundreds or thousands of years. Replace the bully and the victim with a nation or people group that evolves over time. Its not nearly as clear-cut.

Before I give two examples, let me clarify that this thread is not about Israel, Palestine, American pilgrims or the American Indians. These are just examples to illustrate a point and then open it up for discussion:

In American history, we are taught in schools that the pilgrims brutally massacred the Indians. Some of that is true. We white people are here and the Indians are few and far between. But its not nearly that simple. Sure, we are the most powerful country in the world today. But we were not then. Sure the white people eventually outnumbered the Indians. But it was not always that way. When the pilgrims came here, they were outnumbered. They had better technology but they didn't speak the language, they had no "society" to speak of, no real military and no knowledge of what was over here. Some wanted religious freedom because the bullies in European empires were persecuting them. Some wanted opportunity and religion had little to do with it. They hadn't been successful so far and they wanted a fresh start. The Indians were in hundreds of different tribes- some friendly and some not. They knew the territory, they had been here hundreds of years and they were not all innocent. Some would raid other Indian villages, kill every man rape every woman and take the survivors as slaves. Some had ideologies based on warfare and status. The language barrier was huge. If you were a pilgrim here, you had to make your own way. You had to find your own land, cultivate it, build your own house and get your own food. Some got help from friendly Indian tribes. Some didn't. If you knew their language you could relate to them. If you didn't and a guy with funny hair showed up on your doorstep yelling something in a foreign language and he had an axe in his hand, you did what you had to do based on what you knew. There may or may not have been a postal system then. There were no telephones and no way to call for help. You did what you had to do based on what you understood to be true. Any political decision making may have been hundreds of miles away from you. You would find out about it weeks later if you were lucky. An Indian in your yard might be mad at a decision your makeshift government did based on rumors they heard from people like you. Information was hard to find. Sure, you had friends back in Europe. But they were often interested in you merely for financial gain. You had to fight them on occasion too. Even when the settlers grew in number and conquered territory in the east, they were still outnumbered in the west by Indians. They may have gotten a better education academically speaking than the Indians but academics is not the only kind of education. They still did not see the whole picture or of what was going on around them. And they were anything but the most powerful nation in the world. They had enemies in Europe that were far more powerful than they would be in their lifetime. So the bully in our eyes was not necessarily the bully back then.

Now, lets look at modern-day Israel. They are a beast of military force and influence compared to Palestine. Their leader is very powerful. They may have the upper hand, in general over the Palestinians as far as money and weapons. Even if they don't, they are friends with the most powerful nation in the world. So many of us in our modern day American thinking label them as the bully- completely ignoring the past as well of some of the present. Think of how many people have tried to wipe out or conquer the Jews. Here is a list of just a few: The Egyptians, the Philistines, The Amorites, The Amalekites, The Moabites, the Ammonites, the Midianites, The Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Romans, the Nazis, and the modern-day enemies of Israel which surround them on every side. With respect to that one people group across the big valley from them, they may appear to be the bully. That does not make them the bully in the light of history. That does not even make them the bully now. They could be depending on your point of view. But whether they are or aren’t, it has nothing to do with their present state of power, wealth or even the fact that they are buddies with the most powerful nation in the world.

So, whenever you look at a war or a skirmish in a foreign land while watching it safely from the comfort of your living room, and you want to take sides, just think about this concept first: The one you think is the bully because they have the upper hand can be picking on another bully who had the upper hand on someone else years ago. The victim may also be the bully to someone smaller than them. And if you look hundreds of years back in history their positions may be reversed. The bully today may have been the victim yesterday. The terms “underdog” and “bully” are not synonomous. The big kid in the lunchroom is the bully with respect to the little kid he is stealing lunch money from. He also may be bullied by his dad at home. Or maybe that bully was once scrawny and the kid he is stealing lunch money from may have been bigger than him back in Kindergarden.

While I tend to agree with your conclusion that the term "bully" is overused, your recitation of "facts" is so riddled with inaccuracies that I award 25 speaker points and a loss.

 

[DaisyDay]

That doesn't make them a bully, if the Palestinians would stop their violent behavior, the Israelis would be treating them far differently than they currently are.

Not very differently - the West Bank Palestinians are not faring very well.

There are also times when people are villified as being bullies (such as the Israelis), because they choose not to be suicidal.

Or because they actually are. For instance, the Israeli government has consistently supported the settlers illegally appropriating Palestinian lands.

 

[The Outlier]

While I tend to agree with your conclusion that the term "bully" is overused, your recitation of "facts" is so riddled with inaccuracies that I award 25 speaker points and a loss.

Which facts are you disputing? Is it an opinion that the Indians were not really massacred but fought in combat?- yes. Some of them were massacred. Some of them were mistreated. But it differed from tribe to tribe. Its common knowledge that many of the tribes were violent. Its common knowledge that there was a language barrier. Its common knowledge that at first the Indians had the advantage. As for Israel I getting the history from the Bible as well as recent world history. Everybody knows that the "descendents of Abraham" have been preyed upon from the beginning of time. I did not say Jews because Jews is a term that was not used until later.

 

[CaDan]

Which facts are you disputing? Is it an opinion that the Indians were not really massacred but fought in combat?- yes. Some of them were massacred. Some of them were mistreated. But it differed from tribe to tribe. Its common knowledge that many of the tribes were violent. Its common knowledge that there was a language barrier. Its common knowledge that at first the Indians had the advantage. As for Israel I getting the history from the Bible as well as recent world history. Everybody knows that the "descendents of Abraham" have been preyed upon from the beginning of time. I did not say Jews because Jews is a term that was not used until later.

When "the pilgrims" came, the native people of the area had already been decimated by disease. Further, "the pilgrims" were a very minor group who have been valorized in history out of proportion to their numbers. You are probably conflating them with the Puritans of the Hull fleet and afterward--a common error.

 

[DaisyDay]

Everybody knows that the "descendents of Abraham" have been preyed upon from the beginning of time. I did not say Jews because Jews is a term that was not used until later.

The descendents of Ishmael are also the descendents of Abraham.

 

[Zeek]

For instance, the Israeli government has consistently supported the settlers illegally appropriating Palestinian lands.

I don't know of a single case where Israelis have gone and settled on land whose proven ownership showed it belonged to an Arab family and the Law has subsequently turned a blind eye. I do know of a number of occasions where proposed building or settlement was stopped because the Israeli court accepted documentation proving Arab ownership.

The idea of Israel riding rough-shod over the Arabs and just taking their lands whenever they feel like it, is largely fictional. The exception possibly being the errection of the defence barrier, whose course has affected a number of families, and some lands that were farmed or grazed have been lost....however I believe these things are still being challenged through due legal process as although they might have used the land, it does not automatically follow that they legally owned it.

 

[Zeek]

The descendents of Ishmael are also the descendents of Abraham.

Should have been worded...'The descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob'...then the distinction would have been clear.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

Outlier, the original numerical superiority that the natives had was pretty much shot within a few years because of epidemic disease introduced by the European settlers, and even when some numerical superiority did exist, the colonists were still moving into areas that were essentially post-apocalyptic. In several areas where the English actually settled in North America, they stumbled across a land already ravaged by disease because of earlier forays onto the continent, filled with the ruins and ghosts of civilizations that we don't even have the original names for.

While I tend to agree with your conclusion that the term "bully" is overused, your recitation of "facts" is so riddled with inaccuracies that I award 25 speaker points and a loss.

I'm possibly the only person in the history of policy debate to be told that I deserved negative speaker points (an impossible proposition, for anyone unfamiliar with debate) by a judge who still gave our team the win, along with a stern warning to never again mention the symptoms of Ebola.

 

[CaDan]

I'm possibly the only person in the history of policy debate to be told that I deserved negative speaker points (an impossible proposition, for anyone unfamiliar with debate) by a judge who still gave our team the win, along with a stern warning to never again mention the symptoms of Ebola.

Two of my debaters got a low point win with double 20s earlier this year for running both a Heidegger K and a Japan CP. Perf con and condo were not argued by the Aff. This was at a quarters bid tournament, so you'd think the pool would be better than that.

 

[mafwons]

While I tend to agree with your conclusion that the term "bully" is overused, your recitation of "facts" is so riddled with inaccuracies that I award 25 speaker points and a loss.

I don't know what awarding a loss is, I would think the loser gets no award. However well presented that was, and regardless of a moving conclusion the historical error is at a level that would make any revisionist proud.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

There's something seriously wrong with a culture where victory over one's enemies is viewed as something to be ashamed of, and we have given, we boast of the blows we have received instead of the ones we have given.

 

[Bumble Bee]

MOD HAT ON​

This thread has been moved from American Politics to History.​

MOD HAT OFF​