ThaiHome Posted November 22, 2004 Report Share Posted November 22, 2004 flyonzewall said:...manchukuo). I am curious as to why during this entire thread you have steadfastly referred to Manchuria by the name given to the puppet state that Japan setup following their invasion in 1931? TH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 22, 2004 Report Share Posted November 22, 2004 simple, because in that particular period of time where those atrocities happened that state was called "manchukuo". before the region was called manchuria, and today it is split into liaoniang province, jilin province and heilongjiang province. manchuria is not existing anymore, and the language of court language of the quing dynasty, formed by the manchu invadors, is a dead language. just using the right terminology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALHOLK Posted November 22, 2004 Report Share Posted November 22, 2004 Hi! A significant difference between the vikings thralls and the American slaves was that the thralls were mostly of the same or similar race as their masters. American slaves on the other side were easyly distinguishable from their masters. Furthermore as the slave trade so obviously was against the teachings of the christian churh the decalred that Africans had no soul and consequently were not human beings, thus was institutionalized racism introduced into Europe. regards ALHOLK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALHOLK Posted November 22, 2004 Report Share Posted November 22, 2004 Hi! that western society has been the single most aggressive culture humanity has seen. Yeah, especially the great western arsehole Djingis Kahn. Many Asian countries were colonizes as well. Many of them of them are similar in size and population and have natural resources similar to their African counterparts. Any explanation to offer ?. regards ALHOLK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 22, 2004 Report Share Posted November 22, 2004 djinghis khan was a very brief period. even his children could not keep the empire he built, the only part of his empire that survived was was the shortlived yuan dynasty (1280-1368). another similarly aggressive culture i can think off was the huge zulu empire, which also lasted not longer than his founder shaka zulu (1785-1828). second to western culture is only islam in aggressiveness (the ottoman empire, 1350-1918, the mughal empire, 1526-1858 ). but how many empires came straight out of western history, spanning the whole globe? the macedonian empire, the roman empire, the karolingian empire, the spanish empire, the british empire, and now the american empire, and countless shortlived attempts, such as the the 1000 year empire which lasted barely 12 years. two world wars only in the last century were started by western cultures. a lot compared to it's small percentage of the world population, i think. has any culture conquered as many continents as western culture, destroyed as many indigenous cultures as western culture did (just think of the south and north american indians, the australian aborinees, etc.)? so, yes, i would love to hear any examples of "asian colonialism" with such lasting effects, and widespanning territories as the western empires had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lazyphil Posted November 23, 2004 Report Share Posted November 23, 2004 Look at the Incas in South America, they were brutalizing other tribes long before the Conquistidors arrived there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaiLuk Posted November 23, 2004 Report Share Posted November 23, 2004 Western empires brought peace more than destruction - pax romana. When the conquerors dissolve, that is when the world goes to the shits. Rome gets sacked and what do we get? A thousand years of the dark ages. Advocating the benefits of peace is an academic endeavor. If there is no big dog on the soi, the little dogs will battle it out daily. Its human (and dog) nature. So if the US stayed at home (not impossible, there are isolationist currents in american thinking), what would the world start to look like? You mentioned Macedonia. Oliver Stone has a new movie coming out on alexander, looking forward to that one. I'll be bringing my son to watch it. I made him read some stuff on alexander and have been talking to him about history (no, i'm not teaching him the glories of conquest ). My Kid doesn't seem as interested in this stuff like I was, so i have to use any means such as movies to teach him. OK back to the topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaiLuk Posted November 23, 2004 Report Share Posted November 23, 2004 >>it is impossible to judge japan only by the culmination of a long development that led to the events of nankin and manchuko, but one has to look more into the reasons for the meji restoration in context to the wider develoments in the whole of asia during those days.<< Buddhism believe it or not was a factor in the nanking business. Zen masters of the time were big advocates of conquest. Also teaching soldiers to "give life with the sword", i.e. you are setting a person free? by killing them. And to have a clear mind when killing for the glory of the emperor. When your religous leaders tell you that you are like the buddha if you can feel as "lite as a goose feather" while killing, well you need to do some killing so you can be a god. A dark time for buddhism in japan, tho i suspect many still believe the same when in the quiet of their own home. Should point out that shintoism which worshipped the emperor as a god had to be supported by the buddhists if they themselves did not want to be given life by the sword. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gobbledonk Posted November 23, 2004 Report Share Posted November 23, 2004 has any culture conquered as many continents as western culture, destroyed as many indigenous cultures as western culture did (just think of the south and north american indians, the australian aborigines, etc.)? I posted on this a while ago, Fly, and I'll ask the question again : Other than Chile, can anyone name a single country colonised by the Spanish, Dutch or Portuguese which has a decent standard of living ? Is India in better shape now than it would have been if the Spanish had arrived instead of the British ? Thats a tough one, but I'm eternally grateful that our colonial masters in Oz didnt have a resume that read 'raped and plundered large swathes of South America, whilst contributing very little to the countries we stole from'. Indigenous people in NZ, Oz, Canada and the US may not have a great deal to thank the British for, but they do have stable, democratic governments with a judiciary which enables them to protest injustices from centuries past. Were the early inhabitants of Britain given such rights by successive waves of invaders ? We also have economies which are capable of making restitution for the sins of our colonial forebears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 23, 2004 Report Share Posted November 23, 2004 >>>So if the US stayed at home (not impossible, there are isolationist currents in american thinking), what would the world start to look like? <<< personally, i do not think that the US is anything else than isolationist. if i look at the post WW1 history of US foreign engagement, almost all foreign interventions were inspired by purely isiolationist, selfserving motives. how do you otherwise explain the US support of some of the most ruthless dictatorships, but dictatorships that were pro-US? i don't think i have to list them here again. how do you explain otherwise the logic of building up (when it was in US interest) and suddenly dropping insurgencies (when larger political developments have changed). the best example is the tibetan involvement: huge armies were financed, trained and built up. the situation in tibet was artificially radicalised over nearly three decades, away from the public eye. just to be suddenly dropped when the US made a breakthrough in its relationship with china? how do you explain that the US has supported the known alcoholic jelzin (who has run russia into the ground) against gorbatchov (who had feasable plans to slowly modernise the sovietunion), especially considering the fact that germany and europe need a strong russia as a trading partner? how do you explain that japanese warcriminals were suddenly freed after their anti communist stand was suddenly useful? i have been searching for a long time for a logic in some of the US foreign invovements, and the only logic i can find is in aggressive isiolationism. protect the homeland by keeping potential competitors in turmoil. the question for me is not for the US to suddenly stay at home, but to change it's policies of foreign involvement. with great power comes great responsibility, and unfortunately in the latter the US has failed miserably, especially nowadays under bush. the world has been turned back into a quasi cold war situation. the lessons of the mccarthy aera, and mcnamara's war have not been learned. >>>You mentioned Macedonia. Oliver Stone has a new movie coming out on alexander, looking forward to that one. <<< i hope it will be better than troy. i was very disappointed by troy. great action and battle scenes, but the most important aspects of troy fell completely under the table. why fell the great love story between priamus and helen under the table? why was the great mystic battle between the gods not mentioned, the reflection of a world in turmoil on all levels - the humans and the gods? the great epic battle lasting ten years which was a watershed battle over who is dominating the future - new western society, or the far older kingdoms of asia minor? there is so much in homer's iliad, why reducing it to an unintelligent simplistic action movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.