The relevance of European and American conceptions of history

[Tom 1]

I am always mildly irritated by this idea that the Conquistadors were wrong to destroy Aztec civilisation. Those that mourn for it. They literally ripped hearts out of chests on a massive scale. Imperialism has been on the side of humanity too; such as the British ending Sati and suppressing the Thuggee in India, or ending the Transatlantic Slave trade (although also a child of Empire); the Romans ending Celtic headhunting and Punic child sacrifice or erecting the Pax Romana; the Persians restoring peoples after overthrowing the Babylonians, etc. To do great good, more often than not you need muscle to enforce it. The more power you gain, the more capacity to do good or ill, and it depends how it is wielded. The age of Imperialism is not past, as the recent border scuffles between India and China show, or the neocolonialism if China in Africa or the nine dashed line, or the alliances and spheres of interest America maintains worldwide. Empire just goes under a new name, 'as all animals are equal even if some are more equal than others'.

The Conquistadors were a pretty ruthless bunch though, the romance language speakers made British imperialism seem benevolent, and it was, at least some of the time. Empire has become a dirty word it seems (or white empires anyway), it can be difficult for some people to associate it with anything beneficial. Nothing new I suppose. I visited Tikal years ago and was told how the Maya venerated their leaders for several generations there until crops started to fail, and then they killed the lot of them. There's just something in us that makes us want to get back to some state that perhaps never even existed, of being in control of our own destinies while also being free from danger. I suppose the Israelite's demands for a king and God's warnings of what that would mean highlights the conflict quite well between wanting to be led and protected but also wanting to be autonomous.

 

[agapelove]

You seem to have a very simplistic good/bad classification of people based only on their skin colour.

You seem to have a desperation to paint me as racist. Ad homs are always indicative of last resort reasoning. I pray that you will find some compassion in you to one day learn that not everyone who sticks up for colored people is a whitey hater!

 

[Chesterton]

...colored people...

"colored people", lol. Is there like a service I can subscribe to which'll give me updates on when words become racist, then acceptable, then racist again, and so on?

 

[agapelove]

"colored people", lol. Is there like a service I can subscribe to which'll give me updates on when words become racist, then acceptable, then racist again, and so on?

The irony has escaped you if you couldn't see the implied air quotes around colored people and whitey hater.

 

[Chesterton]

The irony has escaped you if you couldn't see the implied air quotes around colored people and whitey hater.

I must have trouble seeing invisible things. Maybe Quid can refer me to a good ophthalmologist.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

The Conquistadors were a pretty ruthless bunch though, the romance language speakers made British imperialism seem benevolent, and it was, at least some of the time. Empire has become a dirty word it seems (or white empires anyway), it can be difficult for some people to associate it with anything beneficial. Nothing new I suppose. I visited Tikal years ago and was told how the Maya venerated their leaders for several generations there until crops started to fail, and then they killed the lot of them. There's just something in us that makes us want to get back to some state that perhaps never even existed, of being in control of our own destinies while also being free from danger. I suppose the Israelite's demands for a king and God's warnings of what that would mean highlights the conflict quite well between wanting to be led and protected but also wanting to be autonomous.

Some American in WWII commented that the British rule more fairly than the French, and it is noticeable that former British colonies in Africa generally have done much better than Francophone ones. Many British prided themselves on a substantially liberal Empire, for the good of all, usually citing a Pax Britannica as a new Pax Romana, and I am not really aware of such a comparison made by other European powers. The last viceroy of the Raj said that Britain was India's Romans, though they could have been their Normans. The English have always had a fascination with Tacitus, because he wrote on their German forebears and about their island, and I wonder if the more nuanced and often more circumspect view of Empire in that writer did not affect British Imperialism more than the Romance or German equivalents.

I think the decline of Empire as a 'good thing' is mirrored by the decline of Latin and traditional European looking back at Rome. This is why there is less talk of Republican ideals, and more of Greek Democracy for instance, when the Kaisers or so disappeared.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

"colored people", lol. Is there like a service I can subscribe to which'll give me updates on when words become racist, then acceptable, then racist again, and so on?

Pejoration. This whole story reminds me of this Babylon Bee article:

New Program Helps People Of Color Adopt A White Liberal To Speak On Their Behalf

 

[Radagast]

Pejoration. This whole story reminds me of this Babylon Bee article:

New Program Helps People Of Color Adopt A White Liberal To Speak On Their Behalf

Since the world has actually started copying Babylon Bee and Onion articles, that just frightens me even more.