User Tag List

First 345

Results 41 to 47 of 47

  1. #41
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wildcat View Post
    There are those who say Americans would have treated their aboriginal people better had they remained under the British. It is not a surprising statement if you look at world events then and later.
    Yeah - just look at Africa in the 19th Century.

  2. #42
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Yeah - just look at Africa in the 19th Century.
    I can kind of see where he gets that idea. The thing is, the apparently better treatment the British gave to their old-world colonies is the result of the resilience of the natives. Unlike the Americans, they just wouldn't die. It basically has to do with more advanced technology and more resistance to disease. So the British had to take a harsh, domineering position, instead of a flatly genocidal one.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  3. #43
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    I can kind of see where he gets that idea. The thing is, the apparently better treatment the British gave to their old-world colonies is the result of the resilience of the natives. Unlike the Americans, they just wouldn't die. It basically has to do with more advanced technology and more resistance to disease. So the British had to take a harsh, domineering position, instead of a flatly genocidal one.
    That, and they manipulated unfriendly neighbors into doing all the genocidal nastiness for them. Divide et impera, and all that. So you'd see all these, for example, Tamil massacres of Sinhalese villages in Ceylon, and reporters would tut-tut at the viciousness of the savages, failing to note that they were all carrying brand-new British rifles and reporting to a commanding official back behind friendly lines.

    The main difference was in purpose - Britain had no need to settle its later colonies all that thickly, but rather, keep things destabilized just enough to where it remained the preeminent power in the region to sustain resource extraction, while subduing any sort of ethnic or nationalistic uprising. It's a big reason why in Southern Africa that they were content to play the African tribes against one another, while committing to a war of extermination against the Boers.

  4. #44
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,540

    A Roll of the Dice

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    I can kind of see where he gets that idea. The thing is, the apparently better treatment the British gave to their old-world colonies is the result of the resilience of the natives. Unlike the Americans, they just wouldn't die. It basically has to do with more advanced technology and more resistance to disease. So the British had to take a harsh, domineering position, instead of a flatly genocidal one.
    Yes, look at the countries where colonialism succeeded and where colonization failed.

    It succeded in countries where the population didn't have immunity to ordinary diseases like colds and flu.

    In countries in Africa and Asia where the populations had immunity to common diseases, colonialism failed.

    At the time of colonization the germ theory of disease hadn't been invented so no one, neither the colonists nor the local population, knew what was going on.

    So in any given country the success or failure of colonization was a matter of chance.

  5. #45
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Yeah - just look at Africa in the 19th Century.
    Exactly.

  6. #46
    Cheeseburgers freeeekyyy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Te
    Posts
    1,387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Haidt's contention was that the moral beliefs of conservatives tend to be founded on different premises than that of liberals. Your contention that what the beliefs reveal the believer is beside the point. You may well believe in most of the things conservatives believe in without being one of them, but that does nothing to undermine Haidt's position.
    Perhaps they do, but my point is that you can't expect that just because a person holds a particular position, that means they are without compassion or don't care about personal rights, or on the other end, that a person doesn't value tradition, and believe in a strong state, etc. Conservative philosophy may take a certain position, but that won't necessarily result in "conservative" political policy (think strong socialists/communists); and a liberal philosophy won't necessarily result in "liberal" political policy. (Think classical liberalism)
    You lose.

    _______

    RCOEI
    Melancholic-Choleric
    Respectful Leader

    Johari Window|Nohari Window

  7. #47
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    I think a significant elements of being conservative or progressive is how fortunate one is. I find there's quite a lean toward conservative amongst the privileged. Rich vs the poor, or demographic categories like white and male vs black and female. It makes perfect sense, really. Conservatism at it's most basic is about preservation. It's about keeping things they way they are instead of changing. Why wouldn't those who are most fortunate now resist change?
    I see it as about tradition, a bridge between past and future, trying to deal with avoidable suffering, ie learning and not repeating the mistakes of the past ad infinitum, rather than preservation per se but I do think conservatism is used by the ruling class everywhere to win support for the protection of their privileges.

    Its a shame that's what its been reduced to. Its only a slightly better fate than what's happened to liberalism and socialism.

Similar Threads

  1. [NT] NTs and their Perception of the Golden Rule
    By CuriousFeeling in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 02-11-2010, 02:48 PM
  2. Typical Work and Social roles of the types
    By BlackCat in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 09-04-2009, 10:08 PM
  3. So in Star Wars: Episode VI Return of the Jedi...
    By swordpath in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 07-14-2009, 11:55 AM
  4. Ghost Stories (and Other Tales of the Uncanny)
    By Oberon in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 12-30-2008, 01:08 AM
  5. The Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria of the mind
    By Thursday in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-22-2008, 01:42 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO