LOGO
General Discussion Undecided where to post - do it here.

Reply to Thread New Thread
Old 07-23-2012, 06:07 PM   #21
objennasweene

Join Date
Nov 2005
Posts
465
Senior Member
Default
Um... because Americans love killing brown people?
Aint nothing brown here physically.

Brown also refers to oppressed peoples, victims of colonialism. Historically, Arabs were the conquering 'oppressors' not the oppressed and never experienced the oppression of colonialism.

Arabs are not brown literally or figuratively.
objennasweene is offline


Old 07-23-2012, 06:23 PM   #22
unsamiSlini

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
381
Senior Member
Default
The point doesn't make any sense. Americans love killing brown people but invading Iraq wouldn't have killed too many brown people. If we wanted to kill brown people, we'd invade Pakistan or Sudan or something.
unsamiSlini is offline


Old 07-23-2012, 06:27 PM   #23
wCYvMKAc

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
452
Senior Member
Default
We went to war because it was popular. Afterwards, it became unpopular because it didn't go as well as people hoped. They rationally updated their beliefs about the war once they saw the results.
It was popular because the government claimed Iraq was developing "weapons of mass destruction" and people believed it.
wCYvMKAc is offline


Old 07-23-2012, 07:35 PM   #24
ConoMadura

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
380
Senior Member
Default
How far back is "historically"? Pretty sure the Arabs were conquered by the Ottoman Empire, then ruled by the British and French. I don't think the Middle Ages is what people are talking about when discussing "colonialism".
Go look up the nature and length of the League of Nations' mandates. Are Afghanistan and Iraq colonies ruled by the United States?
ConoMadura is offline


Old 07-23-2012, 07:50 PM   #25
hechicxxrr

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
557
Senior Member
Default
What difference would it make if they were colonies?
Colonialism is the establishment, maintenance, acquisition and expansion of colonies in one territory by people from another territory. It is a process whereby the metropole claims sovereignty over the colony, and the social structure, government, and economics of the colony are changed by colonizers from the metropole. Colonialism is a set of unequal relationships between the metropole and the colony and between the colonists and the indigenous population.[1] That doesn't describe the short-lived League of Nations' mandates at all.

The first group, or Class A mandates, were territories formerly controlled by the Ottoman Empire that were deemed to "... have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory." How is a foreign country intervening (for 12 years in Iraq and ~20 in Palestine/Syria) to facilitate the transition to independence the same thing as colonialism?
hechicxxrr is offline


Old 07-23-2012, 08:08 PM   #26
spravka.ua

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
408
Senior Member
Default
Yes Al, League of Nations mandates were not OFFICIALLY colonies
Where was the economic exploitation?

Never heard of colonies being set up with the specific intent to leave in a few years.

You explain to me what similarities existed between those mandates and other colonies like India or Kenya.
spravka.ua is offline


Old 07-23-2012, 08:21 PM   #27
Caunnysup

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
470
Senior Member
Default
That's new?

JM
Caunnysup is offline


Old 07-23-2012, 09:08 PM   #28
mv37afnr

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
412
Senior Member
Default
Did the people of Palestine, who apparently weren't a British colony, decide for themselves to let the Jews carve a country out of their territory? That was very generous of them.
mv37afnr is offline


Old 07-23-2012, 09:13 PM   #29
Aminkaoo

Join Date
Nov 2005
Posts
464
Senior Member
Default
I wonder if you think Austria was a German colony because the Germans controlled them from 1938-1945? Czechoslovakia?

But those were actual annexations. Britain and France never annexed Palestine/Syria/Egypt.
Aminkaoo is offline


Old 07-23-2012, 09:20 PM   #30
Trotoleterm

Join Date
Nov 2005
Posts
415
Senior Member
Default
I wonder if you think Austria was a German colony because the Germans controlled them from 1938-1945? Czechoslovakia?

But those were actual annexations. Britain and France never annexed Palestine/Syria/Egypt.
I certainly think the Third Reich was imperialistic.
Trotoleterm is offline


Old 07-23-2012, 09:54 PM   #31
emexiagog

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
526
Senior Member
Default
We went to war because it was popular. Afterwards, it became unpopular because it didn't go as well as people hoped. They rationally updated their beliefs about the war once they saw the results.
Sure, and they didn't cheerleader it.
emexiagog is offline


Old 07-24-2012, 12:53 AM   #32
Sdzqerty

Join Date
Nov 2005
Posts
402
Senior Member
Default
Colonization is settling your nationals overseas. Imperialism is annexing a country to extract its resources for the economic benefit of the home country. In the cases of the Middle Eastern Commonwealth of Nations mandates, neither happened, just as in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Indeed.
Sdzqerty is offline


Old 07-24-2012, 01:16 AM   #33
PapsEdisa

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
545
Senior Member
Default
So settling people in, say, Palestine would have been colonization?
Settling British nationals in an area annexed by Britain... that would be colonization.

Letting Jews from around the world settle in Palestine is just immigration.
PapsEdisa is offline


Old 07-24-2012, 01:24 AM   #34
realnilkless

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
687
Senior Member
Default
Settling British nationals in an area annexed by Britain... that would be colonization.

Letting Jews from around the world settle in Palestine is just immigration.
Yes... they "just immigrated" and eventually declared independence and seized most of the land without the consent of the local inhabitants. Definitely not colonization!

Well that settles it I guess, the Palestinians were never wronged and should shut up.
realnilkless is offline


Old 07-24-2012, 01:26 AM   #35
Casyimipist

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
459
Senior Member
Default
The fact that the Arabs didn't get most of the land is their own fault for not accepting the UN partition plan.
That's moot because the Israelis would have gone conquering anyway. They were set in their ways.
Casyimipist is offline



Reply to Thread New Thread

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:20 AM.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Design & Developed by Amodity.com
Copyright© Amodity