Obama and Europe - two of the silliest things ever [Archive]

View Full Version : Obama and Europe - two of the silliest things ever

Vuk

03-25-2012, 15:37

So Obama was supposed to be the President who made everyone in the world love us, who was super intelligent, who was charismatic, and would usher in a new age of diplomacy, where all of our longtime alliances would be strengthened, and we would make new ones elsewhere.
When I see videos like this one, I cannot help but to laugh at that idea:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erYpXzE9Pxs

This guy is frankly embarrassing.
Pictures of world leaders laughing at his pathetic antics don't help either.
https://img252.imageshack.us/img252/764/finepieceofshame.jpg
https://img337.imageshack.us/img337/8858/finepieceofshame2.jpg

What must the world think of a country that elects that as President? We must be the laughing stock for voting that guy into office! A Harvard educated man who is not creative or intelligent enough to think of more than two different speeches to deliver to all our allies, a middle-aged married man who cannot take his eyes off of some 16 year old's butt, a great orator who can stutter more in one speech than Dubya and Clinton put together in their entire lives, and the bleeding genius who believes that there are 57 states in the US! If it wasn't so sad, it may be funny (say for instance if this France, or some other Third-World country's President).

So Euro-weiners, what do you think of our beloved President now? How do you think he views Europe?

HoreTore

03-25-2012, 15:52

Husar

03-25-2012, 16:00

I love it, that was a really funny video and the pictures are great!

I'm so happy that this is all people have to worry about regarding Obama, could be worse like him starting wars or something. :2thumbsup:

Tellos Athenaios

03-25-2012, 16:05

Vuk: nothing we didn't think about y'all before. ;)
You're welcome,

-Smug self-satisfied Euro-dept.

/sarcasm

No seriously? Who cares? Outside of the minds of the elderly the cold war is over and so is any reason to pay terribly much attention to either USA or Russia. China has better food, anyway. ~;)

Vuk

03-25-2012, 16:06

A Negro with a higher education than me? Quick, make fun of his intelligence!!! Obviously a result of affirmative action laws!!!

As for my opinion on Obama, it remains the same as when he was elected; he is the lesser evil. I can never support a conservative like Obama, yet he is a hell of a lot better than the alternative(Palin).

Of course HoreTore, Liberal Guide To Avoiding Questions and Discrediting Your Opponents, Chapter 1: "Call them racist".
So when I was disgusted with Clinton, that was just because of his views and my opinion of his character and intelligence, but when I am disgusted with Obama, it is, of course, because of his race. You guys are sooo unoriginal. Seriously, you need to mix it up once in a while.
And since when is Obama a 'Negro', as you say. He is more 'white' than he is 'black', if you are going to judge his race by his skin colour. In fact, when he has a tan, my younger brother is darker than Obama. Hermann Cain was black, Obama creamy at best. I guess creamy doesn't fit into your nice, neat, black and white European racial classification though. Or do you simply believe in the one-drop rule?

Vuk

03-25-2012, 16:08

No seriously? Who cares? Outside of the minds of the elderly the cold war is over and so is any reason to pay terribly much attention to either USA or Russia. China has better food, anyway. ~;)

Come off it.

I love it, that was a really funny video and the pictures are great!

I'm so happy that this is all people have to worry about regarding Obama, could be worse like him starting wars or something. :2thumbsup:

Who said there were not more important things to think about? That does not make this less important though. Seriously Husar, you know that if that was Dubya, you and all the other Euros would be jumping all over him.

Vuk

03-25-2012, 16:11

A man who looks at a pretty woman's bum while president!? Shocker. Kind of par for the course as a Democrat to love the ladies.

I've got problems with Obama, but this is a little ad hominem.

It is one thing if you are some redneck who doesn't care what people think about you, but it is different when you are the President of the United States. First of all, anyone with a professional job in a professional environment should be quite grown-up enough to not be staring at women's nether-regions. You are supposed to get past that in your early teen years. As President, he represents an entire Country, and as such, should be on his best behavior. Also, one of the 'women', was an underage girl.

Sarmatian

03-25-2012, 16:14

Forget Obama, look at Sarko. While Obama has that "I appreciate female beauty" look, Sarko is all out with his "I wanna a piece of that now"...In Europe, you get points for being a red-blooded male.

Contrary to those two, Berlusconi and Medvedev look asleep and get no points. Ok, granted, Berlusconi probably thinks "Were two of her younger sisters at my manor last Saturday?" but Medvedev's lines of thoughts probably include "What would Vladimir do in this situation?".

HoreTore

03-25-2012, 16:22

Sarmatian wins the Backroom!!

Tellos Athenaios

03-25-2012, 16:43

Come off it.

No really, we're sort of used to the fact that the US president is struggling to find words to "praise" the muppet-of-the-day that we send to the White House whilst the prez is secretly trying to remember a map with the country on it and not altogether sure that the country does in fact exist.

US presidents not having a clue, stumbling over their lines? Happens all the time. I recall Dubya didn't even know who our former Prime Minister was when he went to visit. So could be worse.:shrug:

As for him looking, well uhm Sarko and Mr. Bunga-Bunga... Fine company... or so I hear.

CBR

03-25-2012, 17:31

This was the alternative...

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7266/7014603241_c6261aa702.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/cbrasmussen/7014603241/)

Centurion1

03-25-2012, 19:09

vuk has so clearly never had any sort of interaction with a woman.

men look at womens butts. end. of. story.

married men look at womens butts.

grow up god your like a five year old

Vuk

03-25-2012, 19:41

vuk has so clearly never had any sort of interaction with a woman.

men look at womens butts. end. of. story.

married men look at womens butts.

grow up god your like a five year old

Vuk has had plenty of interaction with women, but Vuk is also used to keeping respectable company that doesn't constantly stare at other people's happy bits. Vuk is used to being in a professional environment where stuff like that gets people complaining. Vuk is also perfectly capable of seeing something without staring at it, and affords people the respect of not creeping them out like a drooling pervert.
So if by being five years old, you mean I actually have enough respect for people not to constantly stare at the tits and ass, and that I expect the same from our President, then yeah, I guess you are right.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-25-2012, 19:58

gaelic cowboy

03-25-2012, 20:01

Vuk has had plenty of interaction with women, but Vuk is also used to keeping respectable company that doesn't constantly stare at other people's happy bits. Vuk is used to being in a professional environment where stuff like that gets people complaining. Vuk is also perfectly capable of seeing something without staring at it, and affords people the respect of not creeping them out like a drooling pervert.
So if by being five years old, you mean I actually have enough respect for people not to constantly stare at the tits and ass, and that I expect the same from our President, then yeah, I guess you are right.

Baring you being homosexual I would say it's a lie that you don't stare at a woman's jiggly bits Vuk.

I fully admit to being in awe of some of the beauties I meet in my daily life, and why wouldn't I stare sure I'm not dead yet.

When I get caught I have enough blather in me anyway to smooth the situation by the application of a joke or amusing turn of phrase.

We stare at women and women shock horror they know and use it too, as long as your not sitting outside bedroom windows sans pantaloons it's all quite innocent.

The Stranger

03-25-2012, 20:02

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxch-yi14BE

Vuk

03-25-2012, 20:20

Then Vuk either has no sex drive or is lying.

Sorry, I just don't believe it.

Seriously, how old are you guys? You sound like a bunch of 15 year olds!
Is it really that hard for you to keep your eyes to yourself? People like you give men a bad name. Men aren't a bunch of animals driven only by a desire to have sex, who at the first site of a woman lose all control, but that is the way you make us out to be. Either that, or you just have no respect for your own reputation.

Baring you being homosexual I would say it's a lie that you don't stare at a woman's jiggly bits Vuk.

I fully admit to being in awe of some of the beauties I meet in my daily life, and why wouldn't I stare sure I'm not dead yet.

When I get caught I have enough blather in me anyway to smooth the situation by the application of a joke or amusing turn of phrase.

We stare at women and women shock horror they know and use it too, as long as your not sitting outside bedroom windows sans pantaloons it's all quite innocent.

Haven't you ever heard of seeing without looking?

For freaks sake guys, are you really saying that either a guy is gay, he has no sex drive, or he has to stare at people's private parts in public?
Sure, there is nothing wrong with taking a second look at a girl walking down the street, but there is a time and a place for everything. In certain places (such as your work environment) and at certain times (such as when you are acting as the representative of your country...not to mention are married), it is just not appropriate.

gaelic cowboy

03-25-2012, 20:31

Seriously, how old are you guys? You sound like a bunch of 15 year olds!
Is it really that hard for you to keep your eyes to yourself? People like you give men a bad name. Men aren't a bunch of animals driven only by a desire to have sex, who at the first site of a woman lose all control, but that is the way you make us out to be. Either that, or you just have no respect for your own reputation.

Haven't you ever heard of seeing without looking?

For freaks sake guys, are you really saying that either a guy is gay, he has no sex drive, or he has to stare at people's private parts in public?
Sure, there is nothing wrong with taking a second look at a girl walking down the street, but there is a time and a place for everything. In certain places (such as your work environment) and at certain times (such as when you are acting as the representative of your country...not to mention are married), it is just not appropriate.

Catch yourself on young fella or life will pass you by and quite quickly too I can assure that, life is not meant to be taken seriously at all at all.

Crazed Rabbit

03-25-2012, 20:37

So is this the result of a google search for "most trivial and banal criticisms of Obama"?

You say constantly staring is rude - sure, but a photograph doesn't prove staring, it only shows where someone was looking at that exact moment. I do not care in the slightest if a man, even if he's the president, glances at a woman.

What must the world think of a country that elects that as President? We must be the laughing stock for voting that guy into office!

:inquisitive:

You can't be serious. George W was a laughing stock in Europe. Obama is not. Completely trivial attacks on Obama will not change that, because no one gives a crap about this stuff.

CR

Beskar

03-25-2012, 20:47

To be fair, Vuk could be telling the truth about not "gorping" at women in public. Doesn't stop him (for example) from loading up his PC in his off-hours for a good stare. There is the arguments such as asexuality/demisexual which don't experience primarily attraction in the same way, and pretty much experience secondary attraction.

But back in the case at point, compare Obama to this person:
https://i.imgur.com/rMvAv.png

I think the last respectable president since Obama was Clinton, and but even then he went for a quickie in the Oval office.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-25-2012, 20:59

Seriously, how old are you guys? You sound like a bunch of 15 year olds!
Is it really that hard for you to keep your eyes to yourself? People like you give men a bad name. Men aren't a bunch of animals driven only by a desire to have sex, who at the first site of a woman lose all control, but that is the way you make us out to be. Either that, or you just have no respect for your own reputation.

What I'm saying is, I look. I try to stop myself from looking, but it's usually after the fact. I'm sorry, but give me the most beautiful woman in the world and I'm sure my gaze will still slip south once or twice, as it did yesterday. I can tell you that that particular woman had the most gorgeous hazel eyes, a mix of deep green and amber, almost gold, with flecks of something ddarker. I can also tell you that she was wearing what appeared to be a man's check shirt with the first three buttons undone.

He's a guy, he looked, his eyes tracked down, he felt guilty. The whole process probably took about a second.

What else did he do that day?

To be fair, Vuk could be telling the truth about not "gorping" at women in public. Doesn't stop him (for example) from loading up his PC in his off-hours for a good stare. There is the arguments such as asexuality/demisexual which don't experience primarily attraction in the same way, and pretty much experience secondary attraction.

And I thought I was being catty.

Sarmatian

03-25-2012, 21:28

You can't be serious. George W was a laughing stock in Europe. Obama is not. Completely trivial attacks on Obama will not change that, because no one gives a crap about this stuff.

CR

That is very true. He's your president, you guys decide if he's doing good enough job to remain that, but as far as his image abroad is concerned, he's much better than Bush and even Clinton. He certainly repaired a lot the damage that was done to American image worldwide by Bush.

I don't really blame him for not knowing what to say to the resident muppet-of-the-day as Tellos put it, but someone of his assistants or most probably a PR guy should have notified him that he's overusing the phrase. Just like smaller countries like to mentioned in a "punch above their weight" category, they can be especially touchy if it's insincere.

Sarmatian wins the Backroom!!

Seventh season in a row. :bounce:

Should I retire now?

Noncommunist

03-25-2012, 21:31

That is very true. He's your president, you guys decide if he's doing good enough job to remain that, but as far as his image abroad is concerned, he's much better than Bush and even Clinton. He certainly repaired a lot the damage that was done to American image worldwide by Bush.

I don't really blame him for not knowing what to say to the resident muppet-of-the-day as Tellos put it, but someone of his assistants or most probably a PR guy should have notified him that he's overusing the phrase. Just like smaller countries like to mentioned in a "punch above their weight" category, they can be especially touchy if it's insincere.

While I'm sure he would never do it and it probably would be a bad idea, I'd love it if he actually did tell countries if they were punching below their weight or if they were average.

Sarmatian

03-25-2012, 21:41

While I'm sure he would never do it and it probably would be a bad idea, I'd love it if he actually did tell countries if they were punching below their weight or if they were average.

He does, but that's done behind closed doors. Publicly, it has to be hugs and kisses with (potential) allies.

a completely inoffensive name

03-25-2012, 22:08

You are completely right Vuk. These are the most pressing issues about Obama. You have really gotten to the heart of the matter.

PanzerJaeger

03-26-2012, 00:08

a photograph doesn't prove staring, it only shows where someone was looking at that exact moment.

Yes. Photographs can be very misleading. Funny video, though.

Gregoshi

03-26-2012, 05:30

This was the alternative...

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7266/7014603241_c6261aa702.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/cbrasmussen/7014603241/)

Perspective (visual and mental) can suggest things that aren't there. This and the two Obama pictures in the OP are perfect examples. The first OP picture interpretation is so far off it isn't even funny. How can Obama be staring at the butt of someone facing him and in front of him? He's looking at what she dropped. In the second picture he is side by side with her (he's going down the steps and she's going up) and I'd hazard to guess he is looking at whatever it is she is holding...but that is my perspective on the picture.

Looking at a selected instant of a moving world can get you results you want. Want to make Bush look stupid? Snap enough pictures of his face and you'll get the dumb expression you want. Want to make him look drugged up? Keep snapping those pictures. I hear photographers like to follow our presidents around, so there is plenty of opportunity to get the picture you want.

Strike For The South

03-26-2012, 19:34

Some people just aren't meant to be critical thinkers

And the OP is a shining example

You should continue to pet the rabbit

Vuk

03-26-2012, 19:45

Lemur

03-26-2012, 19:49

In fairness to Strike, your OP consisted of:

Obama is so stoopid
Obama stares at ladies' butts

There's not a lot of room to respond to that sort of thing seriously. IMHO, Strike is giving like he's getting.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-26-2012, 23:44

Slyspy

03-26-2012, 23:52

Gregoshi and Strike have the right of it.

Beskar

03-27-2012, 00:08

Want to make Bush look stupid? Snap enough pictures of his face and you'll get the dumb expression you want.

I am feeling the referencing there, Gregoshi!

Strike For The South

03-27-2012, 04:49

Strike, you are the only person on earth who actually takes anything you say seriously, so rather than wasting bandwidth posting here, maybe you should just stand in front of your cracked mirror and have 1-liner-sation with yourself. It will save everyone a lot of bother.

False, I rarely take anything I say seriously. One only needs to look at the grammar and spelling of my posts to come to the conclusion that I am mentailly impared or starved for attention.

Personally I feel somewhere between those two poles is a happy medium.

I'll be honest VUK Im still fairly convinced you're a troll but if your not I shudder in fear to think these are your actual opinions. I can listen to conservatives, libreals and all the rest but its members like you who trully leave me at a loss. I think I am most blown away by the fact that you think these opinions are valid and your reached them by using critical thinking skills.

Then I realize your vote counts the same as everyone elses, But before you go off on a rant on I think I am better than you, read this. Guys like Saski and PJ (among others) are smart guys one only needs to look at how they saved the pornography thread from you. I talk to you for the sport of.

I come here becuase it is a bully pulpit, Very ralery do I use anything othen than conjecture becuase sometimes it's fun to be a sanctimonious, self richoues prick.

In fairness to Strike, your OP consisted of:

Obama is so stoopid
Obama stares at ladies' butts

There's not a lot of room to respond to that sort of thing seriously. IMHO, Strike is giving like he's getting.

*Secert "prefered member" ORG handshake*

What you said about him - is how we feel about you right now.

Unless, of course, you want to claim I have been Strike's Alt all this time?

Paint me like one of your French girls

a completely inoffensive name

03-27-2012, 05:14

Vuk steals my job of dumbing the conversation down half the time and does it in a much more enthusiastic and efficient manner.

Therefor I ask the moderators to deport Vuk from the backroom.

Montmorency

03-27-2012, 05:16

Fragony

03-27-2012, 09:11

CountArach

03-27-2012, 09:11

Vuk, you're going to have to do better than that...

https://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r44/CountArach/george-bush-ass.jpg

https://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r44/CountArach/merkel-bush-shoulder-massage.jpg

Ronin

03-28-2012, 14:12

The Obamamania here was emberassing to the least, with the height of hilarity giving him the Nobel peace-prize just he's Obama. Leader-cultus isn't gone at all in Loonieleftistan. They were so certain of it but wrong as usual, there isn't any change... they can believe in. He isn't.... him

The non-demigod Obama aka human is an ok president I guess

agreed that giving him the Nobel was a really silly move on the Nobel institution side... I think he is a fine president but that was really for...nothing really.

as for people that are asking for Vuk's removal from the backroom.
as one of the older members in this forum (10 years and counting) I must remind you that we are in a forum that managed to handle much worse (who was ultra-christian that interpreted everything on the bible literally? Navarros? something like that?) - Vuk is almost reasonable by comparison.
let us not be so thin skinned, you darn kids....back in my day we had it much harder...ohhh yes, I remember having to walk 10 miles to and from school every day, in the rain and snow....and it was uphill... both ways!!!

Lemur

03-28-2012, 14:17

Yeah, speaking as someone who has caused his fair share of trouble—and as the only mod to don the green robes while still holding an active warning point or two—I don't think it's reasonable to demand that Vuk be yanked from the BR. Was this a silly thread? Yes. Do we need to get our corsets in a bunch over it? No.

Kralizec

03-28-2012, 14:54

(who was ultra-christian that interpreted everything on the bible literally? Navarros? something like that?)!

Navaros. Isn't your member title a parody of his? I recall his title being "standing up for morality". I miss him...

Rhyfelwyr

03-28-2012, 15:01

I must remind you that we are in a forum that managed to handle much worse (who was ultra-christian that interpreted everything on the bible literally? Navarros? something like that?)

I thought Navaros was a troll account used by Tribesman?

And didn't he convert to Islam or something ridiculous like that?

Kralizec

03-28-2012, 15:08

No, I'm pretty sure Navaros was the real deal. On another forum I used to visit years ago there was also a member called Navaros which had the same...opinions and posting style. Eventually got himself banned, too. I got the distinct impression that the .org version was the same person, allthough that's obviously open to doubt.

CountArach

03-28-2012, 15:16

Navaros was legit. There was no way that someone could argue as much or as passionately as he did without being real.

Vuk

03-28-2012, 15:38

Lemur

03-28-2012, 15:39

Someone disagrees with your views, so you want them banned. After all, that is the liberal way: crush all opposing views and hide them from sight (or site in this case).
Don't overstate your case. One user asked that you be banned (possibly in jest), and two stood up for you right away. Please put away your victim card, sir.

Rhyfelwyr

03-28-2012, 16:46

I mean, you are not up in arms over PJ being a holocaust semi-denier and a Nazi sympathizer.

When (?) PJ held those views, didn't he get banned multiple times and put on several user's ignore list?

Don't remember it myself but I remember it being mentioned.

I may well be wrong so if so ignore this.

Lemur

03-28-2012, 16:49

That's correct, PJ paid a price for holding and expressing some extreme views, although I do not believe he ever came down as a Holocaust denier. Furthermore, my understanding is that a lot of his WWII posts are a reaction against NAZIS BAD ALLIES GOOD reductionism, which is a tricky but fair line to walk. Not all Wehrmacht were monsters; not all Allies were saints. That's legit. (Although, given the scale and publicity of evil that happened under the 3rd Reich, it's a difficult point to make, and leaves the arguer open to accusations of Nazi sympathizing and/or historical revisionism. Both of which have been hurled at PJ in quantity and quality. And in fairness to PJ, he has taken the criticisms as they came.)

Vuk

03-28-2012, 16:51

When (?) PJ held those views, didn't he get banned multiple times and put on several user's ignore list?

Don't remember it myself but I remember it being mentioned.

I may well be wrong so if so ignore this.

I am not saying we should ban PJ for being a Nazi sympathizer. I personally find those views reprehensible, but I also think he has the right to them. It was the hypocrisy from members I was commenting on.
The fact that one member should actually suggest that someone be banned because he disagrees with them, and then other members, rather decrying the practice of banning someone who does not agree with you, they 'stick up for me' by basically saying that I do not disagree with them significantly enough to be banned.
I just think that entire attitude is a little absurd.

rvg

03-28-2012, 16:53

PJ was a lot more fun back in his nazi days. He gave the backroom some of the much needed flavor.

Vuk

03-28-2012, 16:54

That's correct, PJ paid a price for holding and expressing some extreme views, although I do not believe he ever came down as a Holocaust denier. Furthermore, my understanding is that a lot of his WWII posts are a reaction against NAZIS BAD ALLIES GOOD reductionism, which is a tricky but fair line to walk. Not all Wehrmacht were monsters; not all Allies were saints. That's legit.

If I remember correctly though, we did not have individual members calling for him to be banned though, it was the mods. (which, particularly, I think is absurd, as it should be his right to hold whatever views he wants, regardless of how incredibly stupid they are. When his arguments are cut down, it will be educational to the rest of the board to see how they don't make sense.)
The attitude is the same that people have with Rush: that if they don't like what someone says, the authorities should censor them. That is a good way to have a world of stagnating, never changing views, and removing all room for intellectual advancements.

Lemur

03-28-2012, 16:55

other members, rather decrying the practice of banning someone who does not agree with you, they 'stick up for me' by basically saying that I do not disagree with them significantly enough to be banned.
Both Ronin and I jumped in immediately and declared that you should not be banned for expressing an unpopular view. I'm terribly sorry we didn't do so in a way that meets with your approval.

Vuk

03-28-2012, 16:58

Both Ronin and I jumped in immediately and declared that you should not be banned for expressing an unpopular view. I'm terribly sorry we didn't do so in a way that meets with your approval.

That is not what I meant Lemur. Don't get me wrong, I am appreciative that you did. I just was a little surprised that neither you, nor Ronin openly condemned the idea of censoring someone who did not agree with you. While I appreciate you sticking up for me, it just seems to me that you did it for all the wrong reasons. (or at least, that is how it came across)

Lemur

03-28-2012, 17:00

it just seems to me that you did it for all the wrong reasons. (or at least, that is how it came across)
I think the distinction is this: If an Orgah genuinely holds and unpopular view, no way in hell should he or she be banned. But trolls do happen, and there have been occasions when someone stops by just to stir up trouble. As I took it, ACIN was suggesting you were a troll, and therefore banworthy. Ronin and I were saying no, not troll, no banstick. So yeah, as long as you're arguing in good faith, it's all legit.

-edit-

And as for the Limbaugh comparison, that doesn't hold water. Nobody has suggested he be censored; they are trying to undermine his financial base. That's not opposing free speech, rather, that's opposing paid speech. Big difference. I'm free to say what I like, but getting cash moneys for it is a privilege.

-edit of the edit-

Last point: I do not believe PJ ever got in trouble with the mods for his Wehrmacht posts. Rather, it was when he would say something that appeared to bash entire races, ethnicities, religions and/or nations that he would get the enforced timeout. And that sort of thing is clearly out-of-bounds by Org rules.

Askthepizzaguy

03-28-2012, 20:18

Vuk, your posts are hard to read for someone who isn't frothing at the mouth in support of your political viewpoint.

Those pictures you posted are actually famous for being shot by a live, moving picture camera. It's a still from a rolling film. The film shows that Obama was not even remotely close to looking at a girl's butt. The angle is wrong, the timing is wrong, there is precisely one frame which looks incriminating taken out of context. I would google the stupid thing and post the video, but something tells me watching the tape yourself wouldn't cause you to back down one iota from your main point, which is that Obama is a dumb skirt-chaser, essentially.

Then when folks point out stuff like, facts... which contradict your views, you seem to get all bent out of shape and defensive.

You really need to relax man. It's ok to make friends with liberals and it's also okay to get off the partisan war machine for five minutes.

See this, right here:

It is one thing if you are some redneck who doesn't care what people think about you, but it is different when you are the President of the United States. First of all, anyone with a professional job in a professional environment should be quite grown-up enough to not be staring at women's nether-regions. You are supposed to get past that in your early teen years. As President, he represents an entire Country, and as such, should be on his best behavior. Also, one of the 'women', was an underage girl.

This is the righteous indignation of a person who doesn't have the slightest clue what is being referenced by those pictures, which as funny as they are, are absolutely, without a single doubt, 100% misleading stills of live video which prove your point is actually completely false.

Askthepizzaguy

03-28-2012, 20:24

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKaJzL3Y19Q

That took literally 2 seconds to find. Jebus tap-dancing Santa Claus in a halter top. When the video actually was shot in 2009, it was immediately debunked. The still portion of it anyway. What in the blue hades compels people to dig this up again and trot it around as if it had any meaning in the slightest?

Kralizec

03-28-2012, 21:06

I think the distinction is this: If an Orgah genuinely holds and unpopular view, no way in hell should he or she be banned. But trolls do happen, and there have been occasions when someone stops by just to stir up trouble. As I took it, ACIN was suggesting you were a troll, and therefore banworthy. Ronin and I were saying no, not troll, no banstick. So yeah, as long as you're arguing in good faith, it's all legit.

Looking at ACIN's post I doubt that it was intended seriously.

That said, some people apparently enjoy being permanently outraged. Who are we to deny them these simple pleasures?

Vuk

03-28-2012, 21:41

Vuk, your posts are hard to read for someone who isn't frothing at the mouth in support of your political viewpoint.

Frothing at the mouth? Because I criticized Obama. Yeah, totally frothing at the mouth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKaJzL3Y19Q

That took literally 2 seconds to find. Jebus tap-dancing Santa Claus in a halter top. When the video actually was shot in 2009, it was immediately debunked. The still portion of it anyway. What in the blue hades compels people to dig this up again and trot it around as if it had any meaning in the slightest?

I just saw the video AtPG, and it sure looks to me like he is checking her out. I think you are doing too much listening to the commentary and not enough watching the video. Him and the Frenchy both look like they are checking her out.
A comment on the video cracked me up:

REMOVED

Really though, he has a point. The video obviously shows Barrack Hussein Obama checking out an underage girl, but obviously not to someone who cannot see past partisan lines and must rush to the defense of their hero.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKsoXHYICqU

Ronin

03-28-2012, 22:15

Navaros. Isn't your member title a parody of his? I recall his title being "standing up for morality". I miss him...

yup..that's where my title came from

ajaxfetish

03-28-2012, 22:55

Vuk steals my job of dumbing the conversation down half the time and does it in a much more enthusiastic and efficient manner.

Therefor I ask the moderators to deport Vuk from the backroom.

I think you're being a bit oversensitive here, Vuk. ACIN's post, while certainly not flattering to you, seems very clearly to me to be a joke. His rationale for a ban is not that he disagrees with your opinions, but that you're stealing his trolling job (or at least making it redundant). It's basically a 'darned immigrants' type of claim. So you have one person make a joke requesting you be banned, no one else suggests any such thing, and multiple posters step in to make it clear that difference of opinion is no basis for a ban. Of course it's not, and you can go on saying stuff that's as crazy as you like until judgment day. If you do ever end up banned, it will not be for having offensive opinions. If you still want to assert your victimhood, stick to the solid ground of people making fun of you or your ideas, because there is plenty of that here (though I have to say it seems rather justified).

Ajax

PanzerJaeger

03-28-2012, 23:44

Wow, I don't believe it. Someone disagrees with your views, so you want them banned. After all, that is the liberal way: crush all opposing views and hide them from sight (or site in this case). Honestly, that is kinda pathetic.
I mean, you are not up in arms over PJ being a holocaust semi-denier and a Nazi sympathizer, but because someone said something you didn't like about Obama, you wanna ban them. You sure got your priorities straight.

There is no method for dealing with (extremely mild) criticism as courageous as pointing to the guy next to you and saying 'but he's worse!'

I do not appreciate being dragged into your back and forth, but I suppose some clarification is in order.

I have never denied that the Holocaust happened. I do believe that it happened, and I think that there is plenty of evidence to support that belief. I have, however, questioned many of the common notions surrounding the event including its uniqueness in the historical record as compared to the actions of other nations, the German public's knowledge of it, the German military's knowledge and complicity in it, its size and scope in relation to other German priorities, and what I see as a Holocaust industry that perpetuates those myths.

In regard to the Nazis, 'sympathizer' has taken on a meaning that belies the word's definition. I sympathize with the German public in the 1920's and 30's and I understand why Nazism held the appeal that it did. I sympathize with the members of German military, including the SS, as I believe the vast majority were well intentioned professionals motivated by the same nationalism and desire to protect their families and their nation that drove Allied soldiers to enlist. I even sympathize with a great number of political Nazis. Their willingness to embrace empire-building militarism was no different than that which built the British, French, Russian, and American empires. I can even understand the twisted utilitarianism embraced by Hitler to justify many of his excesses. None of that means that I support Nazism or its policies.

In general, yes I do see the Second World War in shades of grey and I regard the idea that it was some kind of 'good war' as largely propaganda and a 'written by the victors' historical bias. I see the rise of the Nazis not as a singular event but as the culmination of century-long power struggle between established empires and aspiring ones. And yes, I see the way the Allied nations dealt with peoples they considered subhuman, sometimes only decades before the war, and wonder why the Germans are regarded as uniquely reprehensible. I believe that a lot of people content themselves in the superficial belief that Nazi Germany was some kind of uniquely evil 'other' because a deeper exploration of the state and the people that comprised it would reveal just how similar they were those of the Allies.

I stand by every position I've taken in regard to Germany during the Second World War over the years. I understand that such opinions are not popular, and I have taken plenty of criticism for expressing them. I have never been punished for them as I always source my claims appropriately. I do acknowledge that I come to such discussions with a unique perspective, but your above hack job does not accurately represent that perspective.

Vuk

03-29-2012, 00:15

There is no method for dealing with (extremely mild) criticism as courageous as pointing to the guy next to you and saying 'but he's worse!'

I do not appreciate being dragged into your back and forth, but I suppose some clarification is in order.

I did not bring you into the conversation for that reason PJ, and nor did I seek to misrepresent your views. You may deny that you are a Nazi sympathizer, but, no offense intended, that is what I consider you. I brought you into the conversation to show the hypocrisy of AtPG. Even though I disagree with a lot of views strongly, I did not make any judgment of them. I simply said that even though you hold a view vastly more controversial than mine, it is not you, but me who AtPG is calling to be banned. I don't think you should be banned, and I don't think that AtPG should say you should. I was simply pointing out AtPG's hypocrisy.

Askthepizzaguy

03-29-2012, 01:15

Um, Vuk....

AtPG?

Are you even reading the names of the folks you're complaining about? I did no such thing.

You're so excited about the idea of having a political enemy that you can't even tell us apart anymore. Nothing would help you more than a serious vacation from the realm of politics. It's not healthy.

ajaxfetish

03-29-2012, 01:52

I was simply pointing out AtPG's hypocrisy.

First of all, ACIN, not AtPG. Second, to definitively show hypocrisy on ACIN's part, you'd need to demonstrate that he considered PJ to be a threat to his status as backroom troll, but failed to issue a tongue-in-cheek call for a ban as a result. Finally, I'm not sure anyone expects that level of consistency in a joke, and condemns its absence as hypocrisy.

Ajax

Vuk

03-29-2012, 01:55

Um, Vuk....

AtPG?

Sorry, I meant ACIN. I always confuse you guys names for some reason.

Askthepizzaguy

03-29-2012, 01:55

The main problem I see with the democratic process is that monied or otherwise politically powerful interests with an already overwhelming stranglehold influence on our Congress now own and operate 24-hour a day "infomercial" stations masquerading as news or legitimate political commentary. They provide the viewing audience, already an ill-informed bunch too lazy to do any research, with a steady and constant stream of two things: You're totally awesome and smart, and THEY are horrendous, corrupt, and dumb on every level.

It's not even about policy differences, because that would require articulating a viewpoint and debating things, which is not interesting to folks who want to only hear about one side and how great it is. It's more about saying that red is good and blue is bad, or blue is bad and red is good. I've watched these networks. I've seen their websites and blogs. I've listened to their talk radio programs for hours at a time, for years. I know exactly what goes on, and why people need to change the station if they're in any way serious about having an adult conversation about politics.

24 hours a day of constant, never-ending campaigning and news-like commentary. There is no break from campaign mode; there is no stopping the smearing of political opponents, no break in the partisan process where people can actually come together and discuss the issues like colleagues, like they have to in order to actually affect change. Instead, from the moment a person gets elected until the day they leave politics forever, they are the enemy that must be slain, or your very close friend and isn't it awful what the other side says about them.

Obama is a pathetically mild center-right candidate in a country that has gone off the deep end regarding right-wing politics. His idea of "socialism" is giving more money to big corporations to help them become greedy, well-funded fat cats again, and forcing poor people to buy for-profit insurance which they couldn't afford in the first place. He's been a disappointment to liberals on many, many levels, since taking office. But if you look anywhere that the media giants with a political bent can reach, which is everywhere, you'll see Obama the socialist partisan liberal extremist. A "too professorial" out-of-touch guy who is also too dumb and too concerned about the poor, at the same time. You'll see a guy who is anti-religion, while also having a dubiously extreme former pastor. He's a Muslim foreigner, whose birth documents are obvious forgeries even to people who can't bother to look at them. He's relentlessly anti-American and weak on defense, while waging wars and ordering raids and even going further than Bush did with regards to hunting terrorists and suspending certain protections that American citizens are supposed to have from overzealous law enforcement. He's simultaneously a communist and a fascist corporatist with fat-cat friends. A weak-willed, spineless, apologist, who is also so radical and dedicated to destroying America that we know with absolute certainty that he will begin tearing America apart and displaying his true political positions, right after he gets re-elected.

He's able to be contradictory things. Fantastic things. Things you'd be sure were utterly :daisy: lies, but Sean Hannity said it and he's wearing a tie, so it must be true. Obama, the completely milquetoast extremist Muslim Christian anti-capitalist fatcat inexperienced insider foreigner from Hawaii, who strongly craves the flesh of little girls. He's basically a child rapist, right?

You know about Soccer riots, where people get in such an emotional frenzy regarding their team or the sport in general, that they start behaving like mindless maniacs and end up putting dozens of people in the hospital or worse? That's what is happening with our politics. It's just a game, red versus blue, and the world will come to an end if our team loses. Those across the political aisle are evil and they're coming in the dark of the night to take your jobs and rape your babies, and if we don't start holding more rallies with our firearms proudly displayed, America will be destroyed forever.

You see this video where Obama is helping a young woman down a flight of steps? When he turns and offers the young woman his hand, as he's looking down at the actual steps to keep his footing, another woman walks up the steps. And in a brief moment, it sorta looks like he's checking her out, but he's not.

Now we know for sure that Obama is a lecherous womanizer who wants to have sex with your children. That's not even in dispute, that's on camera, on the public record, for folks who can look at something and see something entirely different and report what they've seen to everyone else with not an excessive amount of completely legitimate moral outrage, with a straight face.

You're drinking the Kool-Aid, Vuk. They put poison in it, man. I'm just asking you to switch to water for a while, for your own good.

Because I do not think you're bad, or evil, or dumb, or anything. I think you're a perfectly fine, normal person, who has gotten caught up in a game you cannot win because it hurts you before it even begins to hurt your opponents.

Greyblades

03-29-2012, 02:56

We really need an "eating popcorn" smilie.
Also, hey pizza. Backroom's been boring without you.

InsaneApache

03-29-2012, 03:55

We really need an "eating popcorn" smilie.

:laugh4:

Was thinking exactly the same.

Papewaio

03-29-2012, 04:15

It would go well with: :coffeenews: :smoking:

CountArach

03-29-2012, 05:05

We really need an "eating popcorn" smilie.
:pop2:

Greyblades

03-29-2012, 08:27

:pop2:
Perfect!
:pop2:

Centurion1

03-29-2012, 08:53

Do PJ's views sometimes make me uncomfortable?

Yes.

Do I occasionally have to make sure I didn't accidentally go to stormfront?

Yes.

But he's just so damn eloquent. I will literally find him in real life and hire him as my speech writer if I ever run for office. Plus I agree with him on essentially everything besides.... the controversial bits people take exception to.

HoreTore

03-29-2012, 14:58

The Backroom has a a very high ceiling when it comes to controversial stuff.

The problem is that the OP here does not consist of arguments. THAT is what ticks people off, not the level of controversy in the topic.

Strike For The South

03-29-2012, 15:42

The problem is that the OP here does not consist of arguments.

DING DING DING DING

Vuk can stay, I just hope at some point he sees the error of his ways.

PJ is still a dirty little fascist. I would love nothing more than to tie him up and pour hot wax all over is hairless Aryan body

Peasant Phill

03-30-2012, 12:01

... (say for instance if this France, or some other Third-World country's President).

So Euro-weiners, what do you think of our beloved President now? How do you think he views Europe?

I find it hilarious that you say that France is a Third-World country.

Granted Obama isn't living up to the steep expectations but this is reality.

Fragony

03-30-2012, 13:57

Granted Obama isn't living up to the steep expectations but this is reality.

Reality is also that these high-expectations were really there, it was pathetic how what Vuk calls euroweenies acted as if the Messias had returned. Not Vuk's fault they now look like the idiots they really are. A little bit of disrespect for Europe we should be able to just deal with no, as if us euroweenies are all nuance when it comes to the US

Goofball

03-30-2012, 22:11

Hax

03-30-2012, 22:16

Why does this thread even have four pages? Are you taking his political views so seriously that you're willing to spend a good portion of your spare time discussing them?

I simply said that even though you hold a view vastly more controversial than mine

Heh. You should look up the thread where I called 300 a racist film. I was personally attacked and suspected of sympathising with al-Qa'ida. Speaking of impopular or controversial views.

HoreTore

03-30-2012, 23:23

a completely inoffensive name

03-31-2012, 05:39

All of you are wrong. Vuk is completely right about my intentions and I will state them loud and clear right now.

Vuk, I am a liberal. And Thus, I want you out of this backroom because I disagree utterly with everything you write and due to my liberal brain, I cannot comprehend nor tolerate your rational brain anymore.

I want PJ banned as well for understanding the mind of a 1940s German citizen. Because my liberal sensitivities are hurting right now at the thought that anyone can sympathize with someone who may have kind of liked Hitler.

Also, I am very dissapointed in you AtPG. You should know better than to be mean to people and be hypocritical at that.

classical_hero

03-31-2012, 17:41

https://i1160.photobucket.com/albums/q485/classical_hero/thread.jpg

The video itself is humorous, but the rest of the OP is utter rubbish and I don't like President Obama myself, but the OP is not a good reason for disliking him.

Lemur

03-31-2012, 19:10

Here's a much more thoughtful, reasoned critique (http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/139909/) than the op:

[Obama]'s a racist hatemonger. Just to be clear. So much for hope and change. Hope is what he promised. Hate is what he’s delivering.

gaelic cowboy

04-02-2012, 10:17

To derail this thread completely:

300 is a ridiculous film, and has it all backwards. In order for freedom(tm) to win, the persians had to win. Spartas victory ensured the continuation of their hellish totalitarian system.

You mean like the way for Nazism to be defeated meant the Western powers had to effectively unleash Bolshevism on the world. Hmm actually seems quite the same whichever way you spin 300.

Strike For The South

04-02-2012, 19:35

Heh. You should look up the thread where I called 300 a racist film. I was personally attacked and suspected of sympathising with al-Qa'ida. Speaking of impopular or controversial views.

Fascist

Fragony

04-02-2012, 22:11

Fascist

Personally I find it funnier that that goadherder Alm%^&*^Idunno called 300 an attack on muslim culture. There wasn't any at the time , bit of a 700 year's gap between. beeeeeeeh

Hax

04-03-2012, 00:06

Ahmadinejad?

No, but it does fit into the stereotypical Orientalist portrayal of the Middle-East, either pre- or post-Islamic.

Papewaio

04-03-2012, 00:52

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-03-2012, 00:58

To derail this thread completely:

300 is a ridiculous film, and has it all backwards. In order for freedom(tm) to win, the persians had to win. Spartas victory ensured the continuation of their hellish totalitarian system.

Perisa was a total feudal autocracy. The King of Kings treated his subjects well but they had zero "freedom" and if Persia had one Athens and the other democratic states would have been utterly crushed and political thought would have stagnated

So I hope your post was an unfunny joke.

As far as Sympathising with the Third Reich, if you take away the Death Camps it is not really much worse than any other state at the time. The NAZI regime just brought German efficiency to the type of ethnic cleansing the British and French had been practicing since before the First World War. As far as I know PJ's main contention is that Stalin was worse than Hitler, and who can really argue with that?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-03-2012, 01:01

One would have to be looking to be offended.

What is the basis of the offense? That the Persians who weren't Muslims in the comic book nor in the real world equivalent period of time, generations later took up Islam. Therefore it is an attack on Islam?

That's like saying the Spartans who were a ruthless bunch of slave owners who fought with the Athenian democracy... That the Spartans are some sort of Proto Christian freedom fighters. Bollocks.

If people are looking to be offended by live action comic books that have loose connections to an ancient world, then you cannot do anything to please them.

How about, that Xerxes was fair skinned, not black? That if you cut a Persian's hair and trimmed his beard he could pass for a Greek?

300 paints the Persian Wars as an ethnic conflict between East and West, Western Freedom vs Eastern Theological-totalitarianism.

That would be pretty offensive to a Persian. To be honest though, the people that should really be offended are the Spartans.

Hax

04-03-2012, 10:14

All the points made above would have been valid, if not for the words of Frank Miller himself (http://www.theatlasphere.com/metablog/612.php). I mean, he's basically equating Islamic radicals with the antagonists in 300. I don't know.

Perisa was a total feudal autocracy. The King of Kings treated his subjects well but they had zero "freedom" and if Persia had one Athens and the other democratic states would have been utterly crushed and political thought would have stagnated

I'm not really sure this is kinda true. Essentially, citizens under Persian law may have had more freedom than the same citizens under Athenian law. Of course, the Athenian form of democracy was incredibly limited and the idea of a democratic institution within Sparta is laughable. And let's not overplay the Athenian idea of justice: Socrates was sentenced to death and one of Hippocrates' personal friends was executed for performing astronomy.

Sarmatian

04-03-2012, 10:25

Well, I never really thought 300 to be a documentary but an artistic vision of one man, based on a legend over 2000 years old.

Discussing history in the context of the film is ridiculous.

Hax

04-03-2012, 10:29

Not if it is contextualised by the creator within a paradigm that's basically xenophobic.

Sarmatian

04-03-2012, 10:39

Greyblades

04-03-2012, 10:58

As far as Sympathising with the Third Reich, if you take away the Death Camps it is not really much worse than any other state at the time. The NAZI regime just brought German efficiency to the type of ethnic cleansing the British and French had been practicing since before the First World War.

Uh-huh. Pray tell where your getting this interesting notion.
Edit: you mean Cromwell and the irish or King Edward and the jews?

HoreTore

04-03-2012, 11:01

You mean like the way for Nazism to be defeated meant the Western powers had to effectively unleash Bolshevism on the world. Hmm actually seems quite the same whichever way you spin 300.

No, I mean that the Persians were further up the freedom-ladder than the spartans, who created the most brutal regime the world has ever seen.

A persian victory would've meant more freedom for the spartans. A spartan victory ensured the continuation of their brutal oppression.

Kralizec

04-03-2012, 11:12

A persian victory would've meant more freedom for the spartans.

"Spartans" only refers to the upper class of their society, i.e. the actual opressors. The vast majority of people living in the general area of Sparta (and Messenia) were called helots, slaves who were treated as sub-humans.

Fragony

04-03-2012, 11:20

HoreTore

04-03-2012, 11:45

"Spartans" only refers to the upper class of their society, i.e. the actual opressors. The vast majority of people living in the general area of Sparta (and Messenia) were called helots, slaves who were treated as sub-humans.

I reffered to all the people affected by sparta's political system.

gaelic cowboy

04-03-2012, 12:01

No, I mean that the Persians were further up the freedom-ladder than the spartans, who created the most brutal regime the world has ever seen.

A persian victory would've meant more freedom for the spartans. A spartan victory ensured the continuation of their brutal oppression.

Except it was seen as a Greek victory not a Spartan one therefore the allusion to the Allies stands as Persia and Sparta are two side of the same coin to an Athenian are they not.

Also as has been pointed out already 300 plays so fast and loose with the truth that I'm wouldnt be surprised if Hercules or Zena are in the directors cut.

CountArach

04-03-2012, 12:59

Authors should be free to create anything they want. They can portray Hitler and Pol Pot jumping around, holding hands and smelling flowers. It's fiction, it doesn't have to conform to any scientific rules.

Otherwise we might sue the pants of George Lucas for filling our minds with weird, glowing, phallic-shaped objects.
No one is saying they should be censored, but instead Frank Miller and the creators of 300 are being criticised for reinforcing existing stereotypes.

No, I mean that the Persians were further up the freedom-ladder than the spartans, who created the most brutal regime the world has ever seen.

A persian victory would've meant more freedom for the spartans. A spartan victory ensured the continuation of their brutal oppression.
You are applying modern conceptualisations of 'freedom' and 'oppression', as well as buying into the trope that the war was only fought for the freedom of the 'Greeks'. None of these things would stand up to historical analysis, because they are based on a logical fallacy. Also because...

There isn't all that much known about Sparta really, almost impossible to destinguish fact and myth, it's mostly hearsay from other polis
Of this.

Fragony

04-03-2012, 14:04

"No one is saying they should be censored, but instead Frank Miller and the creators of 300 are being criticised for reinforcing existing stereotypes."

Which is rediculous. It's just a cool commic and an awesome action-movie. Stupid mindless fun nothing more. Who would it be stereotyping in the first place, it confused Irans's president with a good part of a millenium OK but he's an idiot. Cool story about cool warriors, that's all

Beskar

04-03-2012, 14:55

Uh-huh. Pray tell where your getting this interesting notion.
Edit: you mean Cromwell and the irish or King Edward and the jews?

Us British invented the concentration camp during the Boer Wars.

But in many respects, World War 1 was simply "Part 1" and World War 2 was "Part 2", ie: They are effectively the same war with a ceasefire in the middle.

Fragony

04-03-2012, 15:00

Us British invented the concentration camp during the Boer Wars

That wasn't very nice admit it

gaelic cowboy

04-03-2012, 15:03

But in many respects, World War 1 was simply "Part 1" and World War 2 was "Part 2", ie: They are effectively the same war with a ceasefire in the middle.

Most conflict from late 19th century to 1989 was for want of a better term about the place of Germany in Europe and the wider world.

Basically in last 150 years all the rows have been about who controls the central bit of Europe where Germany is today. This area and whoever has control of it gives a good launch pad for expansion, but it has no strategic depth and this has meant traditionally Germany has expanded either left or right.

Basically the Germans have being and will forever be trying to remove the geographic impediment to there own safety, lately this has been more political under the EU which has given safety in front and behind them.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-03-2012, 15:04

I'm not really sure this is kinda true. Essentially, citizens under Persian law may have had more freedom than the same citizens under Athenian law. Of course, the Athenian form of democracy was incredibly limited and the idea of a democratic institution within Sparta is laughable. And let's not overplay the Athenian idea of justice: Socrates was sentenced to death and one of Hippocrates' personal friends was executed for performing astronomy. [/COLOR]

There were, so far as I know, no citizens under Persian Law - merely subjects of the King of kings and law was vested in the King. As such, there is no freedom because there are no "rights" except those granted by the King, and what the King grants he may withdraw. This is basically the same legal position as the British Empire adopted, and despite, by and large, treating its subjects very well and yet they all fought bloody insurrections for their freedom.

By contrast, both Athens and Sparta defined their citizen legally, and all citizens were a part of the polity. You may think that Athenian and Spartan definitions of "citizen" were extremely limited, but nonetheless these citizens had actual rights. In the case of Sparta, it pretty much invented legal citizenship when it creates the Spartiates as a class, and both Athens and Sparta operated according to the due process of law, not the whims of the individual ruler. As to Socrates, he accepted his own execution BECAUSE it was legal and to go into exile would be to invalidate Athenian law according to the accounts of both Plato and Xenophon.

We may not find Athens or Sparta to be particularly appealing as societies, but they established important legal and philosophical principles, and the conflicts and interactions between the Polies in Greece fomred the basis for the society you and I live in, not Persian benevolent autocracy.

Consider the difference between Peria under Darius and under Xerxes, vs the continuity within Athens and Sparta over the same period.

Not if it is contextualised by the creator within a paradigm that's basically xenophobic.

Well, this is basically true.

Uh-huh. Pray tell where your getting this interesting notion.
Edit: you mean Cromwell and the irish or King Edward and the jews?

No, I was thinking more of the Boer War concentration camps and Churchill wanting to gas the Kurds (stopped only by a lack of technology). You might also want to look up the affect of the 19th century Schools Acts on Welsh Speakers within Wales.

"No one is saying they should be censored, but instead Frank Miller and the creators of 300 are being criticised for reinforcing existing stereotypes."

Which is rediculous. It's just a cool commic and an awesome action-movie. Stupid mindless fun nothing more. Who would it be stereotyping in the first place, it confused Irans's president with a good part of a millenium OK but he's an idiot. Cool story about cool warriors, that's all

If the stated intent of the author is to equate the foundations of Western society with the current Western-Eastern conflict then that changes things.

Greyblades

04-03-2012, 16:37

No, I was thinking more of the Boer War concentration camps There's a difference between concentration camps and death camps. The only similarities between boer camps and Nazi camps are the poor conditions for the inmates and even then the British didnt intentionally make thier prisoners starve to death in droves, let alone they didn't use gas chambers.

and Churchill wanting to gas the Kurds (stopped only by a lack of technology). ...Tear gas, he wanted to use tear gas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_British_use_of_gas_in_Mesopotamia_in_1920) on tribes that fought against the british. Even ignoring that, wanting to use poison gas on enemy combatants isn't all that heinous for the time.

You might also want to look up the affect of the 19th century Schools Acts on Welsh Speakers within Wales. Ok I cant really find anything on this but I'm assuming they decided to not teach welsh in publuc schools in wales and peanalized those who used it.

Come on, we weren't saints, but the leap between what we did and what the Nazi's did wasn't small.

My nationalism couldn't take it so much as an implication (!)

Sasaki Kojiro

04-03-2012, 16:43

Frank Millers comments are irrelevant. A movie can't become racist after the fact based on whether you read something the author of the original source material said.

Kralizec

04-03-2012, 19:40

You are applying modern conceptualisations of 'freedom' and 'oppression', as well as buying into the trope that the war was only fought for the freedom of the 'Greeks'. None of these things would stand up to historical analysis, because they are based on a logical fallacy.

Strictly speaking, the Greek states were fighting for their sovereignty, if not their "freedom".

Also, from what I've read of it, Sparta's treatment of the helots was exceptional even by the standards of the day. Allthough individuals could conceivably be set free, the helots were basically a nation (in the sense of a cultural/ethnic group) that was kept in perpetual slavery. I imagine that they felt oppressed. About what we really "know" of Sparta, I imagine that quite a lot of what we know derives from the Athenians, but it should be kept in mind that there were also Athenians who admired Sparta and its institutions.

Lemur

04-03-2012, 19:44

Depending on how much you want to believe Thucydides, many fellow Greeks were disturbed by the Spartan subjugation of the Helots. Or as a classics professor friend of mine (http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=57421) put it, "It was fine to enslave other people, but Greeks? That was in bad taste."

Debatable why they disapproved, whether the reasons were economic, cultural or aesthetic.

Sarmatian

04-03-2012, 21:55

Frank Millers comments are irrelevant. A movie can't become racist after the fact based on whether you read something the author of the original source material said.

Exactly. He chose to tell story that he liked. He mentioned numerous times that he was impressed by the movie 300 Spartans and that inspired him to write a comic. He basically took the idea of people fighting against all odds for something they believe in and put it in a historical background.

In that regard, 300 is exactly the same as Braveheart or The Last Samurai. Kingdom of Heaven stands as the opposite example - in that east vs. west conflict Christians are portrayed as evil, scheming, unsophisticated and bloodthirsty while Muslims are brave, benevolent and honourable, which also has little to do with reality.

PanzerJaeger

04-03-2012, 23:33

My nationalism couldn't take it so much as an implication (!)

Nationalism can be blinding. The British committed numerous large and small genocides throughout the history of the Empire, before the war (http://www.amazon.com/Late-Victorian-Holocausts-Famines-Making/dp/1859843824/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1333488889&sr=8-1), during the war (http://www.amazon.com/Churchills-Secret-War-British-Ravaging/dp/0465002013), and even after the war (http://www.amazon.com/Imperial-Reckoning-Untold-Story-Britains/dp/0805080015).

HoreTore

04-03-2012, 23:47

Nationalism is blinding by definition, PJ ~;)

Greyblades

04-03-2012, 23:51

Nationalism can be blinding. The British committed numerous large and small genocides throughout the history of the Empire, before the war (http://www.amazon.com/Late-Victorian-Holocausts-Famines-Making/dp/1859843824/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1333488889&sr=8-1), during the war (http://www.amazon.com/Churchills-Secret-War-British-Ravaging/dp/0465002013), and even after the war (http://www.amazon.com/Imperial-Reckoning-Untold-Story-Britains/dp/0805080015).

No offense, but sources I can confirm or nothing. I'm not buying those books and even then I've seen books that deny the holocaust so books by people I've never heard of aren't exactly convincing.

Sasaki Kojiro

04-04-2012, 00:06

Nationalism can be blinding. The British committed numerous large and small genocides throughout the history of the Empire, before the war (http://www.amazon.com/Late-Victorian-Holocausts-Famines-Making/dp/1859843824/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1333488889&sr=8-1), during the war (http://www.amazon.com/Churchills-Secret-War-British-Ravaging/dp/0465002013), and even after the war (http://www.amazon.com/Imperial-Reckoning-Untold-Story-Britains/dp/0805080015).

You've read these books?? They seem like standard reflexively anti-colonial sensationalism...there's a lot of bad research on this stuff because enough academics like the message.

ajaxfetish

04-04-2012, 00:31

PVC: "As far as Sympathising with the Third Reich, if you take away the Death Camps it is not really much worse than any other state at the time."
Greyblades: "Uh-huh. Pray tell where your getting this interesting notion. Edit: you mean Cromwell and the irish or King Edward and the jews?"
PVC: "No, I was thinking more of the Boer War concentration camps and Churchill wanting to gas the Kurds (stopped only by a lack of technology)."
Greyblades: "There's a difference between concentration camps and death camps."

Yes, there's a big difference between concentration camps and death camps. One that PVC specifically established in his initial post, when he argued that the death camps were the one big distinction between Germany and everyone else. So what were you taking issue with there?

PVC: "Churchill wanting to gas the Kurds (stopped only by a lack of technology)."
Greyblades: "Even ignoring that, wanting to use poison gas on enemy combatants isn't all that heinous for the time."

Again, PVC's point was that the German activities (apart from the death camps) were not abnormally heinous for their time, however atrocious they may appear through a modern lens. You seem confused on whether you agree or disagree with him.

Ajax

HoreTore

04-04-2012, 00:34

Mike Davis is a commie, PJ is a fascist.

I have my doubts PJ has named him as a source because of a shared ideology.....

Greyblades

04-04-2012, 00:42

Yes, there's a big difference between concentration camps and death camps. One that PVC specifically established in his initial post, when he argued that the death camps were the one big distinction between Germany and everyone else. So what were you taking issue with there?
I see, My mistake.

Again, PVC's point was that the German activities (apart from the death camps) were not abnormally heinous for their time, however atrocious they may appear through a modern lens. You seem confused on whether you agree or disagree with him.
It would seem so. I suspect my nationalism produced a knee jerk reaction at the idea of something I see as of high importance being compared to such a heinous counterpart. even though the comparison wasnt particually damaging nor was it incorrect. I was in the wrong, though I'm not sure if my recognising it makes it any better.

a completely inoffensive name

04-04-2012, 00:47

All you Europeans are biased with your privilege anyway. The only people that can truly comment on who was more evil are the oppressed people's in Africa, Asia and South America!

PanzerJaeger

04-04-2012, 00:49

No offense, but Internet content or nothing. I'm not buying those books and even then I've seen books that deny the holocaust so books by people I've never heard of aren't exactly convincing.

Heh, actual sources are usually preferable to internet content. If all you want is someone on the internet bloviating about something they have read somewhere else, then I can find some summaries of the above. :grin:

Source 1: (http://www.monbiot.com/2005/12/27/how-britain-denies-its-holocausts/)

"In his book Late Victorian Holocausts, published in 2001, Mike Davis tells the story of the famines which killed between 12 and 29 million Indians(1). These people were, he demonstrates, murdered by British state policy.

When an El Nino drought destituted the farmers of the Deccan plateau in 1876 there was a net surplus of rice and wheat in India. But the viceroy, Lord Lytton, insisted that nothing should prevent its export to England. In 1877 and 1878, at height of the famine, grain merchants exported a record 6.4 million hundredweight of wheat. As the peasants began to starve, government officials were ordered “to discourage relief works in every possible way”(2). The Anti-Charitable Contributions Act of 1877 prohibited “at the pain of imprisonment private relief donations that potentially interfered with the market fixing of grain prices.” The only relief permitted in most districts was hard labour, from which anyone in an advanced state of starvation was turned away. Within the labour camps, the workers were given less food than the inmates of Buchenwald. In 1877, monthly mortality in the camps equated to an annual death rate of 94%.

As millions died, the imperial government launched “a militarized campaign to collect the tax arrears accumulated during the drought.” The money, which ruined those who might otherwise have survived the famine, was used by Lytton to fund his war in Afghanistan. Even in places which had produced a crop surplus, the government’s export policies, like Stalin’s in the Ukraine, manufactured hunger. In the North-western provinces, Oud and the Punjab, which had brought in record harvests in the preceding three years, at least 1.25m died."

Source 2: (http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/churchills-secret-war-by-madhusree-mukerjee-2068698.html)

"I have not become the King's First Minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire," Winston Churchill famously declared in 1942. That passion for empire did not, however, entail the duty of protecting the lives of the King's distant subjects, especially Indians, "a beastly people with a beastly religion." In 1943, as millions were dying of starvation in 1943 in Bengal, the birthplace of the Raj, Churchill not only refused to help but prevented others from doing so, commenting that Indians "bred like rabbits." The Churchill industry, more interested in the great man's dentures than in his war crimes, has managed to keep this appalling story fairly quiet.

Much has been written on the Bengal famine in India and America, but mostly concentrating on local factors. Madhusree Mukerjee's Churchill's Secret War, however, sets the disaster in its imperial context, showing how the story of the famine was interwoven with the history of Gandhi's "Quit India" movement and the attitudes and priorities of Churchill and his war cabinet. It establishes how Churchill and his associates could easily have stopped the famine with a few shipments of foodgrains but refused, in spite of repeated appeals from two successive Viceroys, Churchill's own Secretary of State for India and even the President of the United States.

Famines, never unknown in India, became increasingly lethal during the Raj because of the export of foodgrains and the replacement of food crops with indigo or jute. The Second World War made things worse, especially after Japanese forces occupied Burma in 1942, cutting off Indian rice imports. Then a destructive cyclone hit the Bengal coast just when the crucial winter crop was maturing and the surviving rice was damaged by disease. Officials of the Raj, fearing a Japanese invasion, confiscated everything that might help the invading force – boats, carts, motor vehicles, elephants and, crucially, all the rice available. The Japanese never came but a panicking public – and many crafty businessmen – immediately began to hoard rice and the staple food of the people quickly disappeared from the marketplace.

Government stocks were released but only to feed the people of Calcutta, especially British businesspeople and their employees, railway and port workers and government staff. Controlled shops were opened for less important Calcuttans and the urban population never suffered too greatly. The rural masses, however, were left to the wolves. This was when Churchill could have made a difference by sending wheat or rice to Bengal, and not enormous quantities. The point was to make hoarding unprofitable and as the Viceroy Lord Linlithgow pointed out, "the mere knowledge of impending imports" would have done so by lowering the price of rice.

Churchill and his war cabinet, however, decided to reserve available shipping to take food to Italy in case it fell to the Allies. Indian nationalist Subhas Chandra Bose, then fighting with Axis forces, offered to send rice from Burma but British censors did not even allow his offer to be reported. Australia and Canada were eager to send wheat but virtually all merchant ships plying in the Indian Ocean area had been moved to the Atlantic in order to bring food to Britain, which already had a comfortable stockpile.

So hundreds of thousands perished in the villages of Bengal and, by the middle of 1943, hordes of starving people were flooding into Calcutta, most dying on the streets, often in front of well-stocked shops or restaurants serving lavish meals. The very air of the metropolis, a journalist noted, was pervaded by that "distinctive sourish odour which the victims give off a few hours before the end."

In London, Churchill's beloved advisor, the physicist Frederick Alexander Lindemann (Lord Cherwell), was unmoved. A firm believer in Malthusian population theory, he blamed Indian philoprogenitiveness for the famine – sending more food would worsen the situation by encouraging Indians to breed more. The prime minister was of the same opinion and expressed himself so colourfully that Leo Amery, Secretary of State for India, exploded at him, comparing his attitudes to Hitler's.

The Churchill industry has always denied that their idol could have done anything to relieve the Bengal famine. Shipping, they claim, was scarce and it just wasn't possible to send food to Bengal. Mukerjee nails those "terminological inexactitudes" with precision. There was a shipping glut in summer and autumn 1943, thanks to the US transferring cargo ships to British control. Churchill, Lindemann and their close associates simply did not consider Indian lives worth saving.

Mukerjee has researched this forgotten holocaust with great care and forensic rigour. Mining an extensive range of sources, she not only sheds light on the imperial shenanigans around the famine, but on a host of related issues, such as the flowering of nationalism in famine-hit districts, Churchill's fury about the sterling credit that India was piling up in London, or the dreadful situation in the villages even after the famine was technically over. Her calmly phrased but searing account of imperial brutality will shame admirers of the Greatest Briton and horrify just about everybody else."

Source 3: (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Imperial-Reckoning/Caroline-Elkins/e/9780805080018/)

"Synopsis

A major work of history that for the first time reveals the violence and terror at the heart of Britain's civilizing mission in Kenya

As part of the Allied forces, thousands of Kenyans fought alongside the British in World War II. But just a few years after the defeat of Hitler, the British colonial government detained nearly the entire population of Kenya's largest ethnic minority, the Kikuyu-some one and a half million people.

The compelling story of the system of prisons and work camps where thousands met their deaths has remained largely untold-the victim of a determined effort by the British to destroy all official records of their attempts to stop the Mau Mau uprising, the Kikuyu people's ultimately successful bid for Kenyan independence.

Caroline Elkins, an assistant professor of history at Harvard University, spent a decade in London, Nairobi, and the Kenyan countryside interviewing hundreds of Kikuyu men and women who survived the British camps, as well as the British and African loyalists who detained them.

The result is an unforgettable account of the unraveling of the British colonial empire in Kenya-a pivotal moment in twentieth- century history with chilling parallels to America's own imperial project.

Imperial Reckoning is the winner of the 2006 Pulitzer Prize for Nonfiction."

You've read these books?? They seem like standard reflexively anti-colonial sensationalism...there's a lot of bad research on this stuff because enough academics like the message.

I have read the books. There is certainly an anti-colonialist, and indeed anti-British sentiment in the latter two. (Davis has his own leanings that go beyond colonialism.) Of course, most works on the British Empire are written from a British or at least Western perspective. With histories, you have to learn to glean the research-supported facts from the editorial bias. There are plenty of those facts in each book that paint a British Empire with the same racist views towards subhumans that the Nazis held, views that led to the same kind of state sponsored mass deaths that occurred under the Nazis. India alone was essentially to Britain what Hitler wanted Russia to be to Germany - starved and dehumanized into a slave state good for nothing but resource harvesting. Indian and other scholars are just coming to terms with British excesses in that region.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-04-2012, 01:06

I see, My mistake.

It would seem so. I suspect my nationalism produced a knee jerk reaction at the idea of something I see as of high importance being compared to such a heinous counterpart. even though the comparison wasnt particually damaging nor was it incorrect. I was in the wrong, though I'm not sure if my recognising it makes it any better.

You should look carefully into the collapse of the Empire in the 50's and 60's, ugly, ugly, ugly. We did, after all, deliberately commit multiple acts of cultural genocide, toppled democratic governments (including Iran's) and did various other pretty shocking things.

While I don't know Mike Davies I do know that, for example, India was exporting rice during famines in the 19th Century.

As to the Boers, well you may want to ask my Boer Aunt about that - or perhaps not. I read a book which indicated that reports at the time concluded that certain camp commanders were deliberately running down food and medicine in order to make the problem (the women and children) "go away", it wasn't a modern left-leaning one, either.

Then there are all the Germans and Italians we shot in cold blood, and more recently the phospherus grenades we used to burn Argentinain conscripts alive in their trenches.

The Papers recovered after the war indicate that the "Final Solution" was the result of a confluence of factors that essentially consisted of the German High Command considering the presence of Jews in occupied Europe to be intollerable and them being unable to remove them because of the war. So they killed them.

The NAZI's were pretty horrific but the Allieswere hardly saints, they included: a constitutionally racist aparteid state (the US) a medieval theocratic monarchy (the British Empire) a pseudo-democratic oligarchy (Free French) and a brutal totalitarian autocracy (USSR).

I have to be honest, I'm not sure Europe would have been that much worse off in the long run if the Germans had won. The Generals had already decided to kill Hitler, so it was only a matter of time and once you removed him and his NAZI cronies, really, who could be bothered with all that ethnic cleansing rubbish? It was all very expensive for no measurable benefit. Pretty un-German, really.

Calling PJ a facist, well he's not Italian for starters. Beyond that, I don't recall him ever expressing support for Mel Gibson.

Greyblades

04-04-2012, 01:10

Hrm, I was hoping for wikipedia articals. Never mind I looked em up myself particually the Kikuyu one, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mau_Mau_Uprising) and I found that both sides comitted many atrocities to each other and the people caught between.

Contrary to African customs and values, Mau Mau members assaulted old people, women and children. The horrors they practiced included the following: decapitation and general mutilation of civilians, torture before murder, bodies bound up in sacks and dropped in wells, burning the victims alive, gouging out of eyes, splitting open the stomachs of pregnant women. No war can justify such gruesome actions. In man's inhumanity to man there is no race distinction. The Africans were practising it on themselves. There was no reason and no restraint on both sides.

—Bethwell Ogot

The most notorious was their attack on the settlement of Lari, on the night of 25–26 March 1953, in which they herded Kikuyu men, women and children into huts and set fire to them, hacking down with pangas anyone who attempted escape, before throwing them back in to the burning huts. The attack at Lari was so extreme that "African policemen who saw the bodies of the victims . . . were physically sick and said 'These people are animals. If I see one now I shall shoot with the greatest eagerness'", and it "even shocked many Mau Mau supporters, some of whom would subsequently try to excuse the attack as 'a mistake'"
A British officer describes his actions after capturing three Mau Mau suspects:

I stuck my revolver right in his grinning mouth and I said something, I don't remember what, and I pulled the trigger. His brains went all over the side of the police station. The other two Mickeys [Mau Mau] were standing there looking blank. I said to them that if they didn't tell me where to find the rest of the gang I'd kill them too. They didn't say a word so I shot them both. One wasn't dead so I shot him in the ear. When the sub-inspector drove up, I told him that the Mickeys tried to escape. He didn't believe me but all he said was 'bury them and see the wall is cleared up.
And from british screenings:

Electric shock was widely used, as well as cigarettes and fire. Bottles (often broken), gun barrels, knives, snakes, vermin, and hot eggs were thrust up men's rectums and women's vaginas. The screening teams whipped, shot, burned and mutilated Mau Mau suspects, ostensibly to gather intelligence for military operations and as court evidence.

—Caroline Elkins

In David Anderson's words, "a story of atrocity and excess on both sides, a dirty war from which no one emerged with much pride, and certainly no glory."

Not exactly a pleasant read.

You should look carefully into the collapse of the Empire in the 50's and 60's, ugly, ugly, ugly. We did, after all, deliberately commit multiple acts of cultural genocide, toppled democratic governments (including Iran's) and did various other pretty shocking things.

While I don't know Mike Davies I do know that, for example, India was exporting rice during famines in the 19th Century.

As to the Boers, well you may want to ask my Boer Aunt about that - or perhaps not. I read a book which indicated that reports at the time concluded that certain camp commanders were deliberately running down food and medicine in order to make the problem (the women and children) "go away", it wasn't a modern left-leaning one, either.

Then there are all the Germans and Italians we shot in cold blood, and more recently the phospherus grenades we used to burn Argentinain conscripts alive in their trenches.
And yet my admiration for empire is not deminished, I see it as a country reacting badly to situations they didnt want, and that's the thing, we didnt want to massacre the mau mau, the boers or the indians but were forced into the situations, where such things were considered neccisary, by the disgruntled natives, the incompetence of the people we put in charge and our own mistakes.
And that's what really gets me when people compare the nazis to colonializm, we didnt set out to kill, yet the nazis were planning to get rid of the jews from the start, and they committed such horrors, not out of poorly percieved necessity, but of unprovoked malace and racist hatred.

a completely inoffensive name

04-04-2012, 01:29

America never wanted to enslave blacks, but the cotton was right there! And the Georgia sun makes labor so tiring....

Greyblades

04-04-2012, 01:33

America never wanted to enslave blacks, but the cotton was right there! And the Georgia sun makes labor so tiring....

Heh, nice, though I dont excuse them or anyone of slavery.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-04-2012, 02:19

And that's what really gets me when people compare the nazis to colonializm, we didnt set out to kill, yet the nazis were planning to get rid of the jews from the start, and they committed such horrors, not out of poorly percieved necessity, but of unprovoked malace and racist hatred.

The Nazi's didn't "set out" to kill Jews either, just to remove them from Europe - that's the point.

Sasaki Kojiro

04-04-2012, 02:33

I have read the books. There is certainly an anti-colonialist, and indeed anti-British sentiment in the latter two. (Davis has his own leanings that go beyond colonialism.) Of course, most works on the British Empire are written from a British or at least Western perspective. With histories, you have to learn to glean the research-supported facts from the editorial bias. There are plenty of those facts in each book that paint a British Empire with the same racist views towards subhumans that the Nazis held, views that lead to the same kind of state sponsored mass deaths that occurred under the Nazis. India alone was essentially to Britain what Hitler wanted Russia to be to Germany - starved and dehumanized into a slave state good for nothing but resource harvesting. Indian and other scholars are just coming to terms with British excesses in that region.

The kenya one is the one I googled:

More generally, there are grave doubts over Goldhagen’s principal source for his account of Kenyan “genocide”: namely, Caroline Elkins’s book Imperial Reckoning: The Untold Story of Britain's Gulag in Kenya ↑ (Henry Holt, 2005).

Britain’s Gulag: The Brutal End of Empire in Kenya ↑ (as the book was called in the United Kingdom) may have been written by a Harvard University professor and won a Pulitzer prize; but it was widely criticised even by sympathetic reviewers for its shrill comparisons between British policy in Kenya and the Nazi holocaust (see, for example, Neal Ascherson, “The Breaking of the Mau Mau ↑ ” [New York Review of Books, 7 April 2005]). Some academic reviewers were more dismissive. Susan Carruthers ↑ of Rutgers University, who noted that Elkins had managed to confuse the Hutu and the Tutsi in Rwanda, said: “she proves the least reliable guide to history: this was not genocide - history is not well served by its sloppy invocation”.

Elkins’s cavalier approach to evidence is highlighted by the complete unreliability of her most notorious assertion: that there were some 300,000 “unaccounted for” Kikuyu at the end of the British campaign against the Mau Mau rebellion, as compared with the official figure of 11,503 Mau Mau killed in action. I was one of those who drew attention to these flaws of approach and detail (see “Tell me where I’m wrong ↑ ” [London Review of Books, 2 June 2005]) and “The End of the Mau Mau” ↑ [New York Review of Books, 23 June 2005].

In these letters I demonstrate how Elkins manipulates her comparisons of Kenyan ethnic populations in the censuses of 1948 and 1962, covering the Mau Mau years. She chooses six ethnic groups. Comparing the Kikuyu to the other five would have shown a 60% increase for the Kikuyu from one census to the other, and a 51% increase for the other five. Elkins, however, chooses to treat the two groups with lowest growth - the Embu and Meru - as “Kikuyu” (on the grounds that they spoke the Kikuyu language ↑ ), thus creating a contrast between a 42% growth for the combined “Kikuyu” and 61% for the remaining three groups (Kamba, Luo and Luhya). By this sleight of hand she creates a theoretical shortfall of 19%, which she then translated into her “300,000 unaccounted for”; a figure that Goldhagen uncritically recycles.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/david-elstein/daniel-goldhagen-and-kenya-recycling-fantasy

Basically my theory (which makes me sad) is that a great many people move past the high school version of history (which is perfectly fine--because it's for kids) and then go for an equally silly version of history which they don't treat skeptically because "the high school version is so obviously false". I'm thinking of pvc's "the nazi's were pretty horrific, but the allies were no saints" talk, no offense pvc.

There's enough good history books out there. Having a western perspective is a good thing. It's not like self-criticism isn't a feature of western thinking.

@pj:If you take our past as generally good and steadily improving, you naturally reject any radical political views. Thus people with radical political views are strongly motivated to attack the past. They usually attack the present too, and present a glorious future to give something for people to be passionate about. This is why no history written by radicals is worth reading. There's plenty written by regular conservatives and liberals.

Askthepizzaguy

04-04-2012, 09:24

I take it that the OP has abdicated, and without the local monarch, the peasants have revolted and started a new topic entirely?

If so, I claim credit for starting the revolution. We shall build a great nation, and I will be the father of your country. Put me in your history books, SilliestThingsEver-land.

gaelic cowboy

04-04-2012, 10:00

When people claim benign neglect as the primary reason for the Indian Famine they must realise how hollow it sounds to me as an Irish person, they knew full well the consequences of food export during droughts.

It is without doubt one of the largest :daisy: stains on the empire that both India and Ireland suffered famines when there was absolutely no need for it.
There was no millitary, economic or even a proper agricultural reason for the famine to occur, both places had plenty of other foods available that the people could eat.

In the case of Indian it's pretty damming because those :daisy: had done it before here in 1840s and so were well aware of the potential for devestation among the populace.

They chose to ignore the lessons they had learned in Ireland and as a result India suffered even worse, I wonder if the crops had failed in Kent would they have stayed so mechanical.

Papewaio

04-04-2012, 10:08

One of the many reasons not to let market forces be unleashed.

I'm pretty happy that the GFC is mainly a curb on luxuries not basic food stuffs.

InsaneApache

04-04-2012, 12:33

Just some thoughts on the Allies v the Axis.

WWII didn't start off as a 'just war', it was a local European war that morphed into a 'just war' after the event. Rather like the ACW.

As for the Allies being compared to the Third Reich? Absolute piffle. That's like comparing Pol Pot with Nelson Mandela.

Anecdotally; Recently I was talking with my father, who's brother was one of the first British troops to liberate Belsen. He, my uncle, never talked about it. One thing my father did say was that when footage of the camp was shown in the cinemas, people cried and wailed at what they saw. People were physically sick and many ran from the auditorium.

Say what you like about the British but if it wasn't for us then Germany may well have prevailed. Yes we lost the Empire, yes we were buggered financially, yes we got things wrong. We're not perfect. However the world owed us an moral obligation for continuing the fight alone for nearly a year.

The alternative is too horrible to contemplate.

Vladimir

04-04-2012, 13:12

gaelic cowboy

04-04-2012, 13:45

And since we're wildly off topic already: What a gamble! If things would have turned out differently in the U.S. and Germany not declared war on the U.S. you guys would have been hosed. Britain's suffering was her greatest contribution to the war.

America couldnt sit around and let the entire industrial might of Europe and the materials from the various empires fall into the hands of Germany.

The collision was quite frankly inevitable, the USA would have ended up in some kind of a fight regardless.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-04-2012, 14:59

Basically my theory (which makes me sad) is that a great many people move past the high school version of history (which is perfectly fine--because it's for kids) and then go for an equally silly version of history which they don't treat skeptically because "the high school version is so obviously false". I'm thinking of pvc's "the nazi's were pretty horrific, but the allies were no saints" talk, no offense pvc.

There's enough good history books out there. Having a western perspective is a good thing. It's not like self-criticism isn't a feature of western thinking.

@pj:If you takeour past as generally good and steadily improving , you naturally reject any radical political views. Thus people with radical political views are strongly motivated to attack the past. They usually attack the present too, and present a glorious future to give something for people to be passionate about. This is why no history written by radicals is worth reading. There's plenty written by regular conservatives and liberals.

The Allies were no saints though, and unlike someone with a High School history education I know what I'm talking about. In any direct comparison the Allies come out on top in terms of conduct but the point to grasp is that the NAZI's were at the extreme end of a continium, not in a different direction completely. Hitler was part of a pan-European hatred of Jews, in his case the solution was extermination but many English Anti-Semnites supported Zionism as a way to "get rid of" Jewish people.

none of this changes the fact that while the Germans were keeping Jews in concentration camps the Americans were doing the same for ethnic Japanese.

As to not reading "radical" history, most serious historians are "semi-radical" by virtue of being academics. More pointedly, most history books are rubbish, unless it's something minute like, "The history of British infantry doctrine from 1890 to 1945". As for the idea that, "our past [is] generally good and steadily improving" is frankly laughable, progress over the last two hundred years, certainly, but further back than that the question is extremely murky. Although, I can think of at least one recent example of progress followed by regress: After the American Civil War Blacks effectively gained full political rights, which were then gradually chipped away by Congress and the Supreme Court - which is the context within which MLK gave his famous speech.

Just some thoughts on the Allies v the Axis.

WWII didn't start off as a 'just war', it was a local European war that morphed into a 'just war' after the event. Rather like the ACW.

As for the Allies being compared to the Third Reich? Absolute piffle. That's like comparing Pol Pot with Nelson Mandela.

Anecdotally; Recently I was talking with my father, who's brother was one of the first British troops to liberate Belsen. He, my uncle, never talked about it. One thing my father did say was that when footage of the camp was shown in the cinemas, people cried and wailed at what they saw. People were physically sick and many ran from the auditorium.

Say what you like about the British but if it wasn't for us then Germany may well have prevailed. Yes we lost the Empire, yes we were buggered financially, yes we got things wrong. We're not perfect. However the world owed us an moral obligation for continuing the fight alone for nearly a year.

The alternative is too horrible to contemplate.

And therin lies the crucial difference, the systematic and deliberate extermination of an entire people. Unique in modern times.

rvg

04-04-2012, 15:06

And therin lies the crucial difference, the systematic and deliberate extermination of an entire people. Unique in modern times.

I wouldn't call it unique. Genocide has been with us since the biblical times.

Vladimir

04-04-2012, 15:10

America couldnt sit around and let the entire industrial might of Europe and the materials from the various empires fall into the hands of Germany.

The collision was quite frankly inevitable, the USA would have ended up in some kind of a fight regardless.

Yes we could have. And still, inevitable doesn't have a time frame. Quite the gamble.

I wouldn't call it unique. Genocide has been with us since the biblical times.

Agreed. It's quite common if less effective in many periods of human history.

Sasaki Kojiro

04-04-2012, 15:22

The Allies were no saints though, and unlike someone with a High School history education I know what I'm talking about.

But that's exactly my point :shrug:

The high school version of history may be that the allies were "saints" but in reality most people reject that conception while still in high school. And too often they replace it with lazy equivalencies.

gaelic cowboy

04-04-2012, 15:23

Yes we could have. And still, inevitable doesn't have a time frame. Quite the gamble.

The gamble was in allowing fascist regimes to encroach on both pacific and atlantic coasts and think you wouldnt suffer, naturally since atlantic trade was prob worth more at the time Hitler needed to be done in first Japan could wait.

Rhyfelwyr

04-04-2012, 15:24

@pj:If you take our past as generally good and steadily improving, you naturally reject any radical political views. Thus people with radical political views are strongly motivated to attack the past. They usually attack the present too, and present a glorious future to give something for people to be passionate about. This is why no history written by radicals is worth reading. There's plenty written by regular conservatives and liberals.

Disagree completey. First off, you can only judge historians as being 'radical' in relation to what your own (or perhaps mainstream) beliefs are. Which of course doesn't in any way address the content of what they are actually saying, and shows a complete lack of self-reflection in considering why your own views lie where they do on the spectrum.

Secondly, the whole narrative of views being placed on a single spectrum (usually left-right), with those at the far ends being deemed 'radical' is itself a construction of the mid-nineteenth century and the situation that existed then. It takes the work of historians, philosophers, sociologists etc and rams them into a framework that they would most likely never have subscribed to.

A good example of this would be elements of Marx's work. For example, his views on property are viewed as radically left-wing, when in fact his opposition to "bourgeoisie property" was really just an extension of Adam Smith's natural law idea of property being acquired through the fruit of an individual's own labour. Likewise Marx's deterministic view of history with the (IIRC) four stages predating capitalism happen to be the exact same as those propsed by Adam Smith (look up stadial theory).

Marx uses the exact same philosophical justifications and makes the same socioeconomic observations as Smith, yet because his ideas were viewed from a different point in history, they are dismissed today as being radical.

That is blindness on our part.

And furthermore, if people feel that their identification as 'conservatives' or 'liberals' is relevant with regards to their understanding of history, then it is their history books that are not worth reading.

Sasaki Kojiro

04-04-2012, 15:35

Disagree completey. First off, you can only judge historians as being 'radical' in relation to what your own (or perhaps mainstream) beliefs are. Which of course doesn't in any way address the content of what they are actually saying, and shows a complete lack of self-reflection in considering why your own views lie where they do on the spectrum.

And furthermore, if people feel that their identification as 'conservatives' or 'liberals' is relevant with regards to their understanding of history, then it is their history books that are not worth reading.

???

e.g., Howard zinn is radical, and his book is filled with trash as he relentlessly attempts fit everything into his belief system. You can object to dismissing marx (which people don't really do) but surely you agree that rewriting history to conform to marxist theory is bad. Other historians don't do that and give a good perspective, telling the story in such away that a person who disagrees with them still finds the book useful and can see where they disagree. They aren't writing conservative or liberal history they are just a conservative or liberal person writing history.

Rhyfelwyr

04-04-2012, 16:13

e.g., Howard zinn is radical, and his book is filled with trash as he relentlessly attempts fit everything into his belief system. You can object to dismissing marx (which people don't really do) but surely you agree that rewriting history to conform to marxist theory is bad.

It looks like you are conflating people that hold "radical" views with people that attempt to mould history to their ideologies. The are two separate matters, and the latter is simply poor work or dishonesty on the part of that historian. What you might dub an extremist is no more prone to it than a moderate conservative.

And as for "rewriting history to conform to marxist theory", again that is something different from using certain tenents of marxist historiography as a framework for placing isolated periods of history within a wider context. And because many historians do the latter, the marxist strain of thought on history continues to be mainstream and respected even when Marxism the ideology has become defunct.

Other historians don't do that and give a good perspective, telling the story in such away that a person who disagrees with them still finds the book useful and can see where they disagree. They aren't writing conservative or liberal history they are just a conservative or liberal person writing history.

The thing is there is no reason for their conservatism or liberalism to be relevant when they write their history. Those two terms are vague and presuming you are going by the modern American usages, they are very modern creations. Unlike Marxism, they don't offer a new perspective through which to view history.

The nature of Marxist thought was that it offered an explanation of what forces shaped history to take the path that it did. Conservatism or liberalism don't do that.

Of course if they are as you say just a "conservative or liberal person writing history", then that's fine. But why do you feel the need to point out that they were, as you said earlier, "just a regular conservative or liberal"? Would anyone else be less capable of separating their political views from their historical studies?

Sasaki Kojiro

04-04-2012, 16:27

It looks like you are conflating people that hold "radical" views with people that attempt to mould history to their ideologies. The are two separate matters, and the latter is simply poor work or dishonesty on the part of that historian. What you might dub an extremist is no more prone to it than a moderate conservative.

mmm, this is just back to square one. The more radical a historians political beliefs, the more motivated they are to distort history. Obviously if I'm wrong about dubbing someone an extremist, that's different, but if I'm not then they are certainly more prone to do it than a moderate conservative, who is reasonably likely to try and tell what happened, because he believes that what actually happened supports him in his belief.

I'm not sure what you are thinking of when you hear radical. It's not like "having ideas outside the mainstream". Someone who is a passionate atheist is motivated to write a book mentioning only the worst of the church. That's not a strange idea at all.

Regular conservatives are motivated to overly praise, say, the founders and that time period, and to denigrate the recent past with it's changes. Regular progressives are motivated to focus on the bad things and tell history as a series of victories for the progressives, with the end conclusion being that of course we should support the progressives today. But if they are not very radical they also realize the importance of the truth, and have standards for the truth. This makes their history worth reading.

As you get more radical, the concern for truth diminishes. People who desire massive change have to shake peoples faith and calm trust in general improvement, and thus end up portraying history as an unending series of minor victories against oppression, with most of the battle still to be fought, and things like that.

(Obviously, in societies that are in serious need of radical change the radical historian may be the only trustworthy historian.)

I kind of missed the obvious in my description.

Although sometimes radical historians argue for their own story of history, often they just attack whatever they perceive as the view their political opponents hold. The goal is to discredit the opponents without much regard to actual history.

Rhyfelwyr

04-04-2012, 17:14

Well I think you are making a lot of assumptions about the character of 'radical' historians and how they conduct themselves.

Besides guys that are obviously crackpots, what examples are you basing this on? What sort of historians are doing it? Communist, fascist, anarchist, religious extremist, libertarian etc?

It's just that those guys often have a lot of charges made against them, that I've rarely found to actually be true. I think this stems largely from the laziness of those with more mainstream beliefs to actually look at what they are saying seriously.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-04-2012, 17:38

Regular conservatives are motivated to overly praise, say, the founders and that time period, and to denigrate the recent past with it's changes. Regular progressives are motivated to focus on the bad things and tell history as a series of victories for the progressives, with the end conclusion being that of course we should support the progressives today. But if they are not very radical they also realize the importance of the truth, and have standards for the truth. This makes their history worth reading.

If these are the two options in America with regards to your historical narrative it explains the generally poor understanding Americans seem to have of their history.

What you seem to be talking about is a political extremist (left or right) writing their version of history. What I, and I expect Rhy, are discussing is a radical historian. Such a person is someone who goes against the establish narrative within the Academe, not someone who will ALWAYS vote Republican or Democrat.

THIS is a radical historian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesca_Stavrakopoulou someone I personally dissagree with on methodological grounds, but very nice and very popular among her students.

Sasaki Kojiro

04-04-2012, 17:41

I've had the opposite experience. Many really bad historians are defended by "everyone has their bias, you just have to keep that in mind while you read the book". And then I look at the book itself and it's a clumsy attempt solely aimed at promoting some dumb belief of the author. Worthless.

What you seem to be talking about is a political extremist (left or right) writing their version of history. What I, and I expect Rhy, are discussing is a radical historian. Such a person is someone who goes against the establish narrative within the Academe, not someone who will ALWAYS vote Republican or Democrat.

Yes, politically radical, hence the repetition of "radical political" in my original comment...not the equivalent of say, someone in science suggesting a radical theory of somesuch.

If these are the two options in America with regards to your historical narrative

Umm, most people could loosely be described as conservative or progressive, sure. But notice I'm talking specifically about people who believe the truth supports them and are quite conscientious about it. That makes neither of them a bad option.

Greyblades

04-04-2012, 18:04

The Nazi's didn't "set out" to kill Jews either, just to remove them from Europe - that's the point.
Hrm poor choice of words on my part, I meant that the nazi's set out to harm the jews by kicking them out and later killing them, British colonists for the most part set out to make money and the atrocities against the natives were the aftermath of said attempts.

When people claim benign neglect as the primary reason for the Indian Famine they must realise how hollow it sounds to me as an Irish person, they knew full well the consequences of food export during droughts.

It is without doubt one of the largest :daisy: stains on the empire that both India and Ireland suffered famines when there was absolutely no need for it.
There was no millitary, economic or even a proper agricultural reason for the famine to occur, both places had plenty of other foods available that the people could eat.
Huh, the way you say it, it sounds like both native irish and indians rebelled because they were too dumb to find those other foods. :P

In the case of Indian it's pretty damming because those :daisy: had done it before here in 1840s and so were well aware of the potential for devestation among the populace.

They chose to ignore the lessons they had learned in Ireland and as a result India suffered even worse, I wonder if the crops had failed in Kent would they have stayed so mechanical. Meh, they made mistakes in a persuit of profit, thats pretty much the same with every country, heck the only reason it took two famines for us to learn was because the first one didnt do enough damage to make the ruling class consider changing methods would be worth it.

rvg

04-04-2012, 18:27

It's just that those guys often have a lot of charges made against them, that I've rarely found to actually be true. I think this stems largely from the laziness of those with more mainstream beliefs to actually look at what they are saying seriously.

Why take anything they say seriously? Historical facts do not change, all these guys offer is their interpretation of the facts which is largely a matter of opinion. One can argue that Hitler was a good man, that doesn't mean that I have to listen to that person or take their position seriously.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-04-2012, 18:51

Huh, the way you say it, it sounds like both native irish and indians rebelled because they were too dumb to find those other foods. :P

I'm going to jump on this to save Gaelic's blood pressure and to prevent you being verbally eviserated by Banquo.

The thing is, the Anglos, i.e. English colonists, controlled the production and sale of foodstuffs. So what happened is that English aristocrat continued to export food crops for profit instead of releasing them to the internal market and this is basically what caused the famine. It would have been dire straits in any case but the result of this policy was catastrophic, to the extent that Ireland's population in the latter half of the 19th century was less than during the Dark Ages.

Greyblades

04-04-2012, 19:04

It wasnt all that funny but I was kinda joking. Note the ":P"

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-04-2012, 19:53

It wasnt all that funny but I was kinda joking. Note the ":P"

Generally speaking, people don't take well to having jokes made about events which severly truncated their family tree. Potato Famine jokes are like dead baby and Holocaust jokes, best not.

Greyblades

04-04-2012, 20:01

I know that, I wasnt making the joke to say that they were stupid, I was pointing out that gaelic's post gave the impression He was saying that. I found the absurdity kinda humorous, coming from the irish guy. I am neither stupid or bigoted enough to actually think that a joke saying the starving people were too dumb to live is funny.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-04-2012, 20:50

Greyblades

04-04-2012, 20:56

Keep thinking that.

Lemur

04-04-2012, 21:54

Most epic derailed thread ever. Although, given the flimsiness of the OP, I guess that's the best possible outcome.

I like pictures of cats with humorous text superimposed.

Sasaki Kojiro

04-04-2012, 22:03

I like pictures of cats with humorous text superimposed.

By superimposed I take it you mean branded. I believe banquo had his pet cat branded by some sociopathic highschoolers, you better not let him catch you joking about such things.

PanzerJaeger

04-05-2012, 06:59

The kenya one is the one I googled:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/david-elstein/daniel-goldhagen-and-kenya-recycling-fantasy

Basically my theory (which makes me sad) is that a great many people move past the high school version of history (which is perfectly fine--because it's for kids) and then go for an equally silly version of history which they don't treat skeptically because "the high school version is so obviously false". I'm thinking of pvc's "the nazi's were pretty horrific, but the allies were no saints" talk, no offense pvc.

There's enough good history books out there. Having a western perspective is a good thing. It's not like self-criticism isn't a feature of western thinking.

@pj:If you take our past as generally good and steadily improving, you naturally reject any radical political views. Thus people with radical political views are strongly motivated to attack the past. They usually attack the present too, and present a glorious future to give something for people to be passionate about. This is why no history written by radicals is worth reading. There's plenty written by regular conservatives and liberals.

This is why it is generally preferable to read the source material before reading critical deconstructions of it. The blog author portrays the high end of an estimate made in the book as an 'assertion'. Elkins made clear in the text that it was indeed only a rough and wide ranging estimate. IIRC, the lower end was ~100,000, but the blog author does not mention that. The problem with any numbers coming out of Kenya at the time is that they rely on notoriously unreliable census data and the very people in question were the most likely to avoid the censuses. Oh, and the British destroyed many of their records before they left. That is why, as Elkins points, the number could be much higher.

Elkins is hardly a radical. She is a historian and professor at Harvard University. As far as I know she has not attacked the present and has not offered a vision for the future. Her book is certainly biased against imperialism, but most histories are biased in some way or another. Some of the best historical revision is born out of such work. The book received some predictable pushback in Britain, but was largely vindicated upon the discovery (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/07/kenyans-mau-mau-compensation-case) of troves of hidden government documents on the subject. It is important to view such critiques through the same editorial filter that you apply to the source material.

A Western perspective can be good or bad. It certainly is not without its own blind spots. Most high school students can recite with great confidence that six million Jews died at the hands of Adolf Hitler. How many can name the number of Indians that died at the hands of Winston Churchill in the very same conflict?

I do not understand what you mean by conservative and liberal historians when it comes to this subject.

gaelic cowboy

04-05-2012, 10:18

Huh, the way you say it, it sounds like both native irish and indians rebelled because they were too dumb to find those other foods. :P

First off I didnt say what you think I SAID I said there was no proper reason for the famine as there was plenty of food available. Naturally I assumed people understood that the greatest single tragedy to happen in the 19th century Western Europe was not some natural disaster but a result of government policy.

This is why it is so wrong to look at the Indian Famine as benign neglect as I said earlier they lesson had or should have been learned, as a result there can be no excuse for the larger Indian Famines.

And the reason they didnt rebel or find new sources of food is cos they starved to death watching cartloads of food leave there villages literally at gunpoint.

Government policy made the Irish Famine into the single largest natural disater not just in Ireland but in the British Isles and Western Europe in the whole of the 19th century. Lets just think on that for a minute the most powerful country in Europe and by definition the world let people starve to death for want of a crust of bread. (Which was too dear anyway because of interference in the grain market by the corn laws)

Right there with the Corn Laws the claims for the protection of trade by contemporary Governments during the famine are the most hollow babbling of all because the internal market for goods in Ireland was anything but free.

The Famine is the line through which we as a people divide our historical narrative in Ireland, we do not define it by Pre and Post Independence but by Pre Famine and Post Famine.

The famine itself having it's own epoch seeing as it lasted around a decade in parts, Ireland is free today purely because of a bitterness from that event. People literally never talked about it because they felt deep deep shame for having survived, this shame was the reason people seemed at least to Britains eyes to aboutface so quickly politically in the early 20th century.

The reality is that people were haunted by it so much that the dam broke because of the 1916 executions and it litteraly swept your hold on my country away like a gorse fire.

It's not that people dont make Famine jokes I'm sure they do BUT Famine jokes are generally to be avoided because unless your a very very good comedian your attempt at humour will come across as being in poor taste.

Sarmatian

04-05-2012, 13:15

Ok, so Obama said that Germany was punching above its weight and than Hitler got angry because Obama said the same thing for Poland and decided to invade Poland, US and the rest of the world which in turn lead to Irish and Indian Famines who then emigrated to Kenya and made Allies look almost as bad as Nazis?

Does this sum up the thread?

Actually, coupled with erotic connotations from the pictures in the OP, that would make for an excellent summer hit in Hollywood.

Askthepizzaguy

04-05-2012, 13:50

I like pictures of cats with humorous text superimposed.

WHAT??? What about bacon? Surely you don't like cats more than bacon?

Bacon-haters are the WORST KIND OF EXTREMIST.

I hear that Wendy's sells the Bacon-hater for a reasonable price. Yum.

gaelic cowboy

04-05-2012, 13:50

InsaneApache

04-05-2012, 14:36

I wonder if there's any way of working gay marriage into this thread?

Vuk

04-05-2012, 14:40

I wonder if there's any way of working gay marriage into this thread?

You just did.

gaelic cowboy

04-05-2012, 15:20

I wonder if there's any way of working gay marriage into this thread?

Likely other threads are now suffering from a severe lack of Godwins an Thought Preventing Memes and naturally various other Internet Tropes requires to end a thread.

It's like a blackhole at the center of the galaxy or summit

Vuk

04-05-2012, 15:54

drone

04-05-2012, 16:16

Likely other threads are now suffering from a severe lack of Godwins an Thought Preventing Memes and naturally various other Internet Tropes requires to end a thread.

It's like a blackhole at the center of the galaxy or summit
Won't somebody please think of the children!

Greyblades

04-05-2012, 16:32

It's not that people dont make Famine jokes I'm sure they do BUT Famine jokes are generally to be avoided because unless your a very very good comedian your attempt at humour will come across as being in poor taste.

...I wasnt making a famine joke, I was making a joke at how your choice of words resulted in implied unfortunate implications.

It is without doubt one of the largest stains on the empire that both India and Ireland suffered famines when there was absolutely no need for it.
There was no millitary, economic or even a proper agricultural reason for the famine to occur, both places had plenty of other foods available that the people could eat.
See to make the point I think you were making you would have said something along the lines of "but instead of letting the populous eat said foods the british sold them overseas and let the natives starve."
But you didn't, leaving the "plenty of other foods" statement hang, open for interpretation which my first interpritation was that you had said: the natives starved because they didnt know about the foods they could have eaten in thier own homeland.
I found that kinda funny considering how absurd it sounded coming from you, sure I had figured out what you had meant but it seemed like a good chance for levity in this quite morbid thread so I pointed it out.
Unfortunately in the words of the joker: if you have to explain a joke, there is no joke!

Lemur

04-05-2012, 16:34

Here (http://news.yahoo.com/obama-indignant-ignorant-ap-luncheon-220300751.html) is an article I found on Yahoo.
They had me at "like a cornered badger." There's noplace to go from there; perfection has been achieved.

In truth, both conservatives and liberals like to rail at the courts when things don't go their way. Obama is neither the first nor the most bloody-minded (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester_v._Georgia).

Seems to me that when a court strikes down a law a politico disagrees with, they're exercising their right and proper Constitutional role. When a court strikes down a law a politico agrees with, they are unelected dictators defying the will of the public (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57372883-503544/romney-gingrich-blast-prop-8-ruling/). Exemplum gratum:

Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich on Tuesday decried the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for striking down California's Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage -- both of them targeting the judiciary system for invoking what Gingrich described as a "radical overreach" of power. [...]

Romney, meanwhile, released a statement castigating "unelected judges" for ignoring "the will of the people of California."

"Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage," Romney said in a statement. "This decision does not end this fight, and I expect it to go to the Supreme Court. That prospect underscores the vital importance of this election and the movement to preserve our values."

Romney emphasized his belief that "marriage is between a man and a woman" and vowed that "as president, I will protect traditional marriage and appoint judges who interpret the Constitution as it is written and not according to their own politics and prejudices."In other news, water wet, fire hot.

gaelic cowboy

04-05-2012, 16:39

Won't somebody please think of the children!

Think we have the all we need now we just need to inculde the internet tubes and were spent.

CountArach

04-05-2012, 16:53

To bring this thread back on track:
Here (http://news.yahoo.com/obama-indignant-ignorant-ap-luncheon-220300751.html) is an article I found on Yahoo. (Yes, I am still in complete shock that they allowed an article like this to be published on Yahoo. It is the first time I have ever seen a conservative, anti-Obama article on Yahoo!)
Article is a strong word, when this (http://contributor.yahoo.com/user/1193363/john_hull.html) is the author:

John Hull was born and raised on the lower south side of Youngstown, Ohio. He is a Christian conservative, married and a father of three.

Formerly a Youngstown police officer, he now has settled into a peaceful life on a small poultry and game bird farm.
His journalistic qualifications are second to none.

Vuk

04-05-2012, 16:57

Article is a strong word, when this (http://contributor.yahoo.com/user/1193363/john_hull.html) is the author:

His journalistic qualifications are second to none.

It's an opinion piece. You don't have to be a trained journalist to be a Yahoo contributer.

Sasaki Kojiro

04-05-2012, 16:58

His journalistic qualifications are second to none.

If you say so :laugh4:

CountArach

04-05-2012, 17:00

It's an opinion piece. You don't have to be a trained journalist to be a Yahoo contributer.
That was apparent.

Vuk

04-05-2012, 17:02

That was apparent.

Does that make his opinion any less valid, or what he said any less true? If not, then who cares?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-05-2012, 17:32

...I wasnt making a famine joke, I was making a joke at how your choice of words resulted in implied unfortunate implications.

See to make the point I think you were making you would have said something along the lines of "but instead of letting the populous eat said foods the british sold them overseas and let the natives starve."
But you didn't, leaving the "plenty of other foods" statement hang, open for interpretation which my first interpritation was that you had said: the natives starved because they didnt know about the foods they could have eaten in thier own homeland.
I found that kinda funny considering how absurd it sounded coming from you, sure I had figured out what you had meant but it seemed like a good chance for levity in this quite morbid thread so I pointed it out.
Unfortunately in the words of the joker: if you have to explain a joke, there is no joke!

In fairness, I did warn you and you chose not to listen.

Lemur

04-05-2012, 17:35

Does that make his opinion any less valid, or what he said any less true? If not, then who cares?
He opened with "like a cornered badger," so I think it's time for him to go pro.

And as I said, it's customary for politicians to scream and yowl when a court rules against them. This is a truth that transcends party and ideology.

The only remarkable thing about this case is that (a) the court hasn't ruled against him yet, and (b) looks like he's positioning the court as a foil for the fall election.

But anyone who wants to proclaim this the end of democracy is free to do so.

Greyblades

04-05-2012, 17:38

In fairness, I did warn you and you chose not to listen. A warning is useless after the fact especially when it is made under a false assumption and unlike some I have learned to face up to my mistakes, not try to hide them. So if you would excuse another mistake PVC, kiss my asphalt.

I await my infraction points with great self satisfaction.

rvg

04-05-2012, 17:54

Us British invented the concentration camp during the Boer Wars.

Actually no. The dubious honor of creating the first bona fide concentration camps lies with the good ole Rebs from the days of the U.S. Civil War. They ran some camps in Georgia with a kind of diet for the inmates that would make Auschwitz look like Holiday Inn.

Greyblades

04-05-2012, 17:57

And ever since the serving of macdonalds fries in POW camps been classified as a warcrime.

Vuk

04-05-2012, 17:59

Actually no. The dubious honor of creating the first bona fide concentration camps lies with the good ole Rebs from the days of the U.S. Civil War. They ran some camps in Georgia with a kind of diet for the inmates that would make Auschwitz look like Holiday Inn.

Actually, the Spanish set up the first true concentration camps in modern times during the Spanish-Cuban-American War.

Lemur

04-05-2012, 18:00

The dubious honor of creating the first bona fide concentration camps lies with the good ole Rebs from the days of the U.S. Civil War.
I believe you're referencing Andersonville (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andersonville_National_Historic_Site#Conditions). (Warning, at least one image is incredibly grisly.)

Although Andersonville was hardly the first time prisoners of war were systematically starved to death.

rvg

04-05-2012, 18:01

Actually, the Spanish set up the first true concentration camps in modern times during the Spanish-Cuban-American War.

No, rebel camps predate that by about 30 years.

I believe you're referencing Andersonville (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andersonville_National_Historic_Site#Conditions). (Warning, at least one image is incredibly grisly.)

Although Andersonville was hardly the first time prisoners of war were systematically starved to death.

That's it.

Vuk

04-05-2012, 18:07

No, rebel camps predate that by about 30 years.

That's it.

A prisoner of war camp is not the same thing as a concentration or re-concentration camp though. People being treated poorly or starved in POW camps happened nearly everywhere in the world where there was warfare.

Sasaki Kojiro

04-05-2012, 18:22

In fairness, I did warn you and you chose not to listen.

Gaelic was talking about the famines and his comment sounds like he could be saying that they only wanted to eat potatoes and starved despite there being bunches of other food. It's mildly amusing given the context. Quit embarrassing yourself.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-05-2012, 18:59

A warning is useless after the fact especially when it is made under a false assumption and unlike some I have learned to face up to my mistakes, not try to hide them. So if you would excuse another mistake PVC, kiss my asphalt.

I await my infraction points with great self satisfaction.

Hey if you want to be a twerp, that's fine by me but you spent two pages digging that whole and when Gaelic came back his reaction was entirely predictable.

Oh, and if you want to call out me behaviour do it explicitely, not out the side of your mouth.

You are, I assume, English as am I, but you need to gain some perspective on our history if you want to avoid having your teeth knocked out in a pub brawl.

Gaelic was talking about the famines and his comment sounds like he could be saying that they only wanted to eat potatoes and starved despite there being bunches of other food. It's mildly amusing given the context. Quit embarrassing yourself.

I was not the only one unamused and I am certainly not embarressed for not finding "jokes" about mass starvation on my doorstep unfunny. Especially when it conforms to a wider pattern of Westminsterism of which the Irish just had the worst experience.

Ah you know what? The Irish can speak for themselves.

Greyblades

04-05-2012, 19:26

Hey if you want to be a twerp, that's fine by me but you spent two pages digging that whole and when Gaelic came back his reaction was entirely predictable.Indeed and while I was digging a hole as you claim you were turning a mound into a mountain. I had no intention offense and my poor choice of wording has definitely made my statement misinterprited but so far I've been speaking the truth, should you not believe it, well I have nothing more to add.

Oh, and if you want to call out me behaviour do it explicitely, not out the side of your mouth.OK, you misinterprited my statement and instead of attempting to find out what I meant you went into a spiel about respecting history. Now that I have spelled out to you what I did instead of apologising or even aknowledging and responding to my reasoning you dismiss it and all but call me an ignorant idiot.

You are, I assume, English as am I, but you need to gain some perspective on our history if you want to avoid having your teeth knocked out in a pub brawl.
Well considering I have no intention of being in a pub I have no fear of it. You seem to be forgetting that this is the internet, anonyminity makes your threats less than effective, unless you are an obsessive psycho killer there is little chance you will find the time nor inclination to track me down and knock my teeth out.
Oh and I am fully aware of my history, the atrocities of the east india company, the exploitation during the potato blight, the slave/cotton/beads and firearms trade triangle, just because I dont find the british empire the scum of the earth doesnt mean I dont aknowledge their actions. The knowledge doesnt diminish my admiration of it no more than knowing they enslaved 3/4ths of a continent deminishes my admiration of ancient Rome.
Ah you know what? The Irish can speak for themselves.
Quite, i'm pretty sure they would also say something about you a british person speaking for them as you have.

I have no intention of antagonising you or the irish and I would rather be your friend but I have to protest your treatment of this.

rvg

04-05-2012, 19:36

Can we just blame the neocons and move on? I'm sure that if we dig deep enough we'll find a photo of George W. Bush in a red uniform guarding a food cart.

Greyblades

04-05-2012, 19:37

I'm fine with that.

drone

04-05-2012, 19:42

POW camps are not concentration camps. Soldiers != civilians.

Lemur

04-05-2012, 19:46

POW camps are not concentration camps. Soldiers != civilians.
Fair point. Would the British camps for the Boer population (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War#Concentration_camps_.281900.E2.80.931902.29) in South Africa be the earliest example of what we call a "concentration" camp, then?

-edit-

Nevermind, I see the Russians beat the British to it by 200 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_camp#Earliest_usage_and_origins_of_the_term).

-edit of the edit-

And this appears to be the earliest example of an extermination camp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shark_Island_Extermination_Camp) for general population (as opposed to POWs). 1904 for the win!

Sarmatian

04-05-2012, 20:09

Trust Russians, Germans, Americans and Brits to set the standards for inhuman behavior.

Compared to you barbarians, us sophisticated Serbs did it at the end of 20th century.

rvg

04-05-2012, 20:14

Trust Russians, Germans, Americans and Brits to set the standards for inhuman behavior.

Compared to you barbarians, us sophisticated Serbs did it at the end of 20th century.

Better late than never, right?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-05-2012, 21:29

Indeed and while I was digging a hole as you claim you were turning a mound into a mountain. I had no intention offense and my poor choice of wording has definitely made my statement misinterprited but so far I've been speaking the truth, should you not believe it, well I have nothing more to add.

It was still in poor taste, and I think you should just acknowledge that.

OK, you misinterprited my statement and instead of attempting to find out what I meant you went into a spiel about respecting history. Now that I have spelled out to you what I did instead of apologising or even aknowledging and responding to my reasoning you dismiss it and all but call me an ignorant idiot.

What you meant is not at issue, what you wrote is. Anyway, this particular conversation started because you took issue with PJ pointing out the various ways the British government mistreated it's subjects, including the Indian famine. Going on about your nationalism in such a context won't win you any points. If you want to be proud of being "British" that's fine, it's not an identity I personally have, but many in these Islands seem to like it. The point is, things like the Irish Potato Famine, use of the Welsh Knot, forcible removal of Welsh people to flood a resivour to feed Liverpool... these things happened, and not all that long ago. So going, "oh, you mean Cromwell and the Irish" shows a lack of appreciation for our more recent history. If you want to be poud of something, fine, but make sure you know what you're being proud of.

Well considering I have no intention of being in a pub I have no fear of it. You seem to be forgetting that this is the internet, anonyminity makes your threats less than effective, unless you are an obsessive psycho killer there is little chance you will find the time nor inclination to track me down and knock my teeth out.

I am not threatening you, I am inviting you to consider that living in Great Britain it is quite likely that at some point you will find yourself in a pub or other social setting where alchohol is being consumed and you will be sitting accross from someone who has much stronger views on your particular version of British history than I do.

Oh and I am fully aware of my history, the atrocities of the east india company, the exploitation during the potato blight, the slave/cotton/beads and firearms trade triangle, just because I dont find the british empire the scum of the earth doesnt mean I dont aknowledge their actions. The knowledge doesnt diminish my admiration of it no more than knowing they enslaved 3/4ths of a continent deminishes my admiration of ancient Rome.

Then I invite you to take on some non-English perespectives. Try reading something by a Welshman or an Irishman, or even a Cornishman.

Quite, i'm pretty sure they would also say something about you a british person speaking for them as you have.

I don't know, I'm part Welsh and I live in the South West so I know something about the Westminster boot.

I have no intention of antagonising you or the irish and I would rather be your friend but I have to protest your treatment of this.

I can accept that what you initially wrote was meant to be a joke, but it wasn't funny, and under the circumstances, "oops, sorry" would have been a good way to go.

Sasaki Kojiro

04-05-2012, 21:37

I can accept that what you initially wrote was meant to be a joke, but it wasn't funny, and under the circumstances, "oops, sorry" would have been a good way to go.

You still don't get it :shrug:

You should apologize.

Vuk

04-05-2012, 22:02

Both of you are being ridiculously petty. Rather than bickering like 8 year olds, you should just ignore each other's comments on the subject.

Greyblades

04-05-2012, 22:20

The voice of reason coming from vuk? Heh, thought I'd never see the day.
I dont think I'm wrong and I'm not exactly sure I understand what I did was "bad" but as vuk says this isnt important.
Truce?

a completely inoffensive name

04-05-2012, 22:40

I think we can all agree that the real person who should apologize is Phytophthora infestans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potato_blight).

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-05-2012, 23:42

You still don't get it :shrug:

You should apologize.

Please, spell it out for me - because right now I genuinely don't see it.

As far as I can see Greyblades made a crass comment that was, frankly, out of order and not remotely funny as a follow up to rubbishing PJ's claim that the British government has a less than spotless human rights record in recent history, and what he was making light of was Gaelic's post on the Irish Potato Famine, which is not a topic for levity anyway.

It was out of order, I pointed out why, and I feel the right to be mildly offended even though I'm not Irish because it's not just a black period in Irish history, it's a black period in British history.

CountArach

04-06-2012, 00:10

I think this thread has gone on long enough. It has been well off topic for some time and has started to get heated.