Imperialistic History of the United States

[MaxS]

I was referring specifically to MaxS, thank you.
I also happen to spell colour the same way that you do but I was born, raised, and educated here in America. What assumptions have I made about you here so far? What assumptions have been made about me here so far? Were it not for my avatar do you think that MaxS would have still assumed I was white? Even considering my avatar(we'll assume that's actually me) would you still think it would be a fair assumption that I am white? Do you have much of an idea where I live and the sort of people I interact with on a regular basis?

Ok smart guy I didn't look at your avatar I knew you were white because only a white yankee could have been making the posts you were (especially about your diverse relationships lol)

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Are you only capable of twisting and misinterpreting everything I say?

And since when did I ever 'accuse' you of being white?

Where did I say that you had?

Have you ever, for instance, advocated the hiring of a Chinese over someone else because they are 'good at math'?

I believe that I have already touched on the difference between individuals and entire cultures.

You have also revealed that you HAVE been accused of racism by 'the sort of people you interact with on a regular basis'.

You are mixing two of my statements out of context. I've been accused of being racist all of two or three times. In those instances they were individuals who did so because I was enforcing rules that they wished to break and they happened to be of another skin colour than me. It happens quite often that people confronted with an authority figure claim some sort greivance about the manner in which they are being treated, it doesn't matter what their claim is or the colour of their skin. I actually tend to get more trouble from white people.

I accused you of being 'patronizing'...
...You are aware that racism and patronizing are two sides of the same coin don't you?

And I've commented on this already. Sincere compliments are not patronizing. I am not at all being condescending to sincerely state that I admire a particular trait common to or important to a particular culture.

Well, first of all is the patronizing assumption that one must be OF a race to be offended for a start.

For one I rarely use the term "race" and if you look back over my posts here you will probably see that. We're talking about cultures, not races. We're all human beings.
Secondly this was in regards mainly to the idea that the term "warrior" was offensive. Other than that also regarding the idea that someone outside of a culture should find a compliment paid to it insulting seems rather inane. Leave it to them to decide if the compliment is genuine or not and whether or not it is apropriate or anyone should be offended by it. If they are being attacked that is a different story entirely, but some cultures may find it rude of you to intervene, even in that instance, without consent.

You have Rumsfeld's vision of people and Geography.

And you reach this conclusion by my insistance that I can pay a compliment to a culture without it being racist or patronizing. You also again ignore my comments in another thread in regards to looking at certain groups. A comment which you yourself quoted and expounded upon.

In summery it seems that in your zeal to paint me as someone who makes broad generalized assumptions, who is patronizing and unconsciously racist, you have made more assumptions about me than I have about anyone and twisted my words around to fit your assumptions when it suited you. I think someone needs to take a look in the mirror.

 

[MaxS]

Sincere compliments are not patronizing. I am not at all being condescending to sincerely state that I admire a particular trait common to or important to a particular culture

I think that pretty much sums it up right there, for all parties involved (statutory for believing he's made a point and for everyone else since he so clearly exposed his bigotry)

 

[loseyourname]

Jesus, you people act like there is no such thing as a "particular trait common to or important to a particular culture." Take the assertion that Americans are more obese than people of other nations. This is not a bigoted statement; it's an empirical fact. Obesity rates are higher in the US than in most other nations. If you're an American, you are more likely than an Italian to be obese. It is a trait common to American culture to consume a diet unusually rich in fats and sweets. Big deal. Does that mean all Americans are fat? Of course not. Does that mean I must be fat because I'm American? Of course not; I'm rail thin. I'm also Native American. Should I be offended if someone says they admire Native Americans for living in harmony with nature? I guess so, as they must be bigoted stereotypers. I should probably be especially offended since I don't personally live in particular harmony with nature.

Regarding quetzal's original statement, I think he's explained himself enough. It should be clear by now that he was referring to the ability of the Afghan nation to repeatedly repel invasions and occupations throughout history when he said that Afghan's were 'natural warriors.' It should also be clear by now that his statement was probably inaccurate. Inaccurate does not mean bigoted. The definition of a bigot, from dictionary.com, is this: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Is there anything in either quetzal's or Ape's statements that indicate they are either strongly partial to their own culture and intolerant of others? I can't see it. Heck, they've expressed reverence for other cultures, even if that reverence is misplaced and based on an inaccurate analysis. How can you continue to call them bigots? This seems to me like a zealous witch-hunt.

 

[The Smoking Man]

You're right.

Time to put this to bed.

Oh, and I love your people's beadwork.

 

[Mercator]

http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/chappelles_show/index.jhtml

It is a very funny comedy show where the host has skits that are almost exactly like the would-be-witty fictional creation that MaxS had satirically posted.

His intent is counter-racist by making fun of every racial group and pushing the limits to absurdity.

It's programming that no doubt would be blocked by China's censorship, if in fact you are where you claim under "location". Maybe you can get a contraband DVD shipped to you.

Or maybe I can ship some to you :rofl: China's censorship is unexistant in the local DVD shops. In fact in China, nothing is allowed and everything is possible.

 

[MaxS]

Is there anything in either quetzal's or Ape's statements that indicate they are either strongly partial to their own culture and intolerant of others? I can't see it. Heck, they've expressed reverence for other cultures, even if that reverence is misplaced and based on an inaccurate analysis. How can you continue to call them bigots? This seems to me like a zealous witch-hunt.

Read the entire definition smart guy "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or POLITICS (as in belief system) and is intolerant of those who differ.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

"Lighten Up America!"[fyi: vulgar content - be forewarned] You know it really makes me wonder when the people who seem to get bent out of shape the most over this petty little crap are WHITE.

Sorry Evo. I didn't realize my link would bypass the front warning page of his site.
---edit---
or Russ ;-p

 

[loseyourname]

Read the entire definition smart guy "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or POLITICS (as in belief system) and is intolerant of those who differ.

So, smart guy, where did Ape or quetzal show an intolerance of anybody else's politics? If anything, you're the one showing an extreme reaction to and relative intolerance of their political views. All they said was that they admired the warrior tradition of Afghans. Again, they may be inaccurate, but where's the bigotry?

 

[russ_watters]

Sorry Evo. I didn't realize my link would bypass the front warning page of his site.
---edit---
or Russ ;-p

No prob. (this message is too short)

 

[Evo]

Read the entire definition smart guy "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or POLITICS (as in belief system) and is intolerant of those who differ.

MaxS, please stop the insulting behavior.

To everyone - If you haven't already, I suggest that you read the guidelines.

"Langauge Guidelines:

Any foul or hostile language used in Physics Forums will not be tolerated. This includes any derogatory statements and profanity. Direct or indirect personal attacks are strictly not permitted. Insults and negative attitudes are not allowed. It is better to walk away from a possible confontation and come back with constructive arguments."

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5374

 

[Brady]

I believe history must be separated from past and present. In the old days, it really was Social Darwinism, strongest man wins, whatever you want to call it. That worked back then. The strong would use the weak to serve their purposes, and everyone would benefit.

But now, even if America would want to do that (not likely), the easy retalitation from the oppressed eliminates this possiblity.

This distinction must be made clearly. The past was a time of growth, and only the strongest could survive, naturally. But the present is a time of reform and progress, a time where human rights are emphasized.

My strong point is that in the past, everyone used their power to influence others, to dominate. NOT just the USA. This must be clear to everyone. The past was a time of power struggles.

But the past must be remembered and forgiven, not denounced.

 

[MaxS]

I believe history must be separated from past and present. In the old days, it really was Social Darwinism, strongest man wins, whatever you want to call it. That worked back then. The strong would use the weak to serve their purposes, and everyone would benefit.

But now, even if America would want to do that (not likely), the easy retalitation from the oppressed eliminates this possiblity.

This distinction must be made clearly. The past was a time of growth, and only the strongest could survive, naturally. But the present is a time of reform and progress, a time where human rights are emphasized.

My strong point is that in the past, everyone used their power to influence others, to dominate. NOT just the USA. This must be clear to everyone. The past was a time of power struggles.

But the past must be remembered and forgiven, not denounced.

If the past was a time of power struggles I don't see how the present is any different.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Almost none of these actions after 1900 resulted in the expansion of US territory. A bit misleading to refer to this as an "Imperialistic History." Not all military action is imperialistic.

stupid roommate used my name...
inadverdant bump